REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1894 OF 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) 5995 OF 2016)
(CC NO. 1652 OF 2016)
Committee of Management Anuragi Devi ...Appellants
Degree College & Anr.
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, J.
The first respondents vide its letter no. Aff.333/Seventy-6-2012-2
(356)/2012 dated 12.09.2012, granted prior permission for provisional
affiliation to the appellant for a period of 3 years w.e.f. 01.07.2012 i.e.
for the period 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2015 for imparting Education in the Arts
Faculty for the subjects Hindi, Political Science, Sociology, Medieval
History, Education Sanskrit and Home Science. In pursuance of the aforesaid
Government order No. 333 dated 12.09.2012, the Deen Dayal Upadhyay
Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur vide its letter no. 7539/ Affi.2012 dated
27.11.2012 permitted the appellant to admit the students in the various
subjects of the Arts Faculty.
2. The appellant applied on 10.03.2015, to the University for
constituting an Inspection Panel for granting permanent affiliation to the
University. Upon perusal of the application dated 10.03.2015 submitted by
the aforesaid appellants, the University vide its letter No.
DDUGU/Aff.2015/5096 dated 20.03.2015 constituted an Inspection Panel to
submit status report of the appellant as far as the Infrastructural
Facilities existing in the appellant’s college were concerned. The Regional
Higher Education Officer Gorakhpur submitted its inspection report on
06.11.2015 to the University.
3. As per Time Schedule prescribed by the State Government, the
Inspection Report was not received within the prescribed date. In the
absence of the required Inspection Report, the University did not grant
permanent affiliation to the appellant for the Academic Session
2015-16. No appeal was preferred before the State Government.
4. As the permanent affiliation was not granted the appellant college
preferred a writ petition-C No. 42336 of 2015 and the learned Single Judge
of the High Court taking note of the fact that writ petitions seeking
similar reliefs had been dismissed, vide its order dated 20.08.2015
declined to interfere. However, it observed that “the petitioner would be
entitled for consideration of his claim for the next session”. Being
dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the
appellant preferred Special Appeal No. 610 of 2015 before the Division
Bench.
5. The Division Bench, as the factual scenario would unveil, took note
of the prayer of the college that it was in effect seeking issuance of writ
of mandamus requiring the University to extend temporary affiliation for
the courses of Hindi, Political Science, Sociology, Medieval History,
Education, Sanskrit and Human Science at the graduate level for the
academic session 2015-2016 and accordingly adverted to the reasonings of
the learned Single Judge and concurred with him.
6. It was urged before the Division Bench that application for grant of
permanent affiliation in respect of subjects was made well within time,
that is,12.12.2014; that the three-member committee that was constituted by
the University on 20.3.2015 had visited the institution on 14.4.2015 and
submitted the report; and that the inspection team had recommended
extension of temporary affiliation in respect of subjects in question for
the academic session 2015-2016 but there had been failure on the part of
the University which had caused grave prejudice to the college. The
Division Bench noted the stand of the University, referred to the authority
in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P. and others[1],
reproduced the time schedule fixed in the said judgment and observed that
pursuant to the directions so issued the State Government formulated a time-
frame for consideration of applications for affiliation the particulars of
which stood embodied in the Government Order dated 14 November, 2014 and in
terms of the government order the last date for the grant of affiliation by
a University is fixed as 30 May and a person aggrieved by the decision
taken by the University was entitled to prefer an appeal against the same
by 15 June and the State Government was liable to decide the appeal so
preferred latest by 15 July. The appellate-Bench stated that in the facts
of the case the affiliation was neither granted by the time fixed under the
Government Order dated 14 November, 2014 nor was any appeal preferred
before the State Government and, therefore, bearing in mind the directions
issued in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra), it was not open to
either the second respondent or the State Government to pass orders of
affiliation after 30 May, 2015. Being of this view, it dismissed the intra-
court appeal. Hence, the present appeal by special leave.
7. We have heard Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel for the
appellant, Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned counsel for the respondent-university
and Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of
U.P.
8. At the very beginning, we may note that in College of Professional
Education and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others[2], the Court
recorded that for the academic year 2012-13 and subsequent academic years,
institution and the State Government had arrived at a broad consensus
regarding the procedure and terms and conditions of admission, recognition
and affiliation. The terms and conditions which had been accepted by all
concerned were reproduced in the said judgment. In the said judgment, as
is evident, the Court has referred to the order dated 11.3.2011, and also
provided for the time by which the affiliation could be granted to the
colleges. Paragraph (vi) (b) clearly stipulated that after the counseling
is over, the university concerned will continue to allot the candidates
from the relevant waiting list against the vacant seats till all the seats
in the colleges were filled up and the organizing university would provide
students only to the existing B.Ed college and all those B.Ed colleges
which would get affiliation up to 7.7.2011 would not be considered for
counseling to the year 2011-2012 and for the next consecutive years and
onward the colleges which will get affiliated on or before 10th of May of
that year, would be considered for counseling. Certain affiliations were
granted to the colleges which were interefered with by the High Court
primarily on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to extend the
cut-off date.
9. In Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra), the Court dealing
with various aspects, taking into consideration the provisions of the NCTE
Act, 1993 and the NCTE Rules 1997, opined that:-
“The above enunciated principles clearly show that the Council is the
authority constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of
maintaining education of standards and judging upon the infrastructure and
facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion
is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over the views of the
State as well as that of the university. The Department of the State
concerned and the affiliating university have a role to play but it is
limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guideline or policy
which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the standards laid
down by the Central body. The State can frame its policy for admission to
such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity
with the directives issued by the Central body. In the present cases, there
is not much conflict on this issue, but it needs to be clarified that while
the State grants its approval, and the university its affiliation, for
increased intake of seats or commencement of a new course/college, its
directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in
the conditions for approval granted by the Central authority or Council.
What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem
as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of imparting of education
properly and ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education,
examination and infrastructure for betterment of the educational system.
Only if all these authorities work in a coordinated manner and with
cooperation, will they be able to achieve the very object for which all
these entities exist”.
10. And again:-
“67. In the present case, we are concerned with the provisions of the NCTE
Act which is a Central legislation referable to Schedule VII List I Entry
66. Thus, no law enacted by the State, which is in conflict with the
Central law, can be permitted to be operative.
68. Now, let us examine the conflict that arises in the present cases. In
terms of the provisions of the Act, the Regional Committee is required to
entertain the application, consider State opinion, cause inspection to be
conducted by an expert team and then to grant or refuse recognition in
terms of the provisions of the Act. Once a recognition is granted and
before an institution can be permitted to commence the course, it is
required to take affiliation from the affiliating body, which is the
university.
69. Thus, grant of recognition or affiliation to an institute is a
condition precedent to running of the courses by the institute. If either
of them is not granted to the institute, it would not be in a position to
commence the relevant academic courses. There is a possibility of some
conflict between a University Act or Ordinance relating to affiliation with
the provisions of the Central Act. In such cases, the matter is squarely
answered in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya[3] where the
Court stated that after coming into operation of the Central Act, the
operation of the University Act would be deemed to have become
unenforceable in case of technical colleges. It also observed that
provision of the Universities Act regarding affiliation of technical
colleges and conditions for grant of continuation of such affiliation by
the university would remain operative but the conditions that are
prescribed by the university for grant and continuation of affiliation must
be in conformity with the norms and guidelines prescribed by NCTE”.
11. After so stating, the Court further proceeded to state:-
“76. In terms of Section 37(10), a college which has been affiliated is
entitled to continue the course of study for which the admissions have
already taken place. To give an example, under the statute of Meerut
University, affiliation of new colleges is dealt with under Statutes 13.02
to 13.10 of Chapter XIII. This requires that every application for
affiliation of a college has to be made so as to reach the Registrar in
less than 12 months before the commencement of the course and before an
application is considered by the Executive Council, the Vice-Chancellor
must be satisfied that there is due compliance with the provisions of
Statutes 13.05, 13.06 and 13.07. Besides, it requires the conditions like
adequate financial resources, suitable and sufficient building, adequate
library, two hectares of land, facilities for recreation of students, etc.
to be fulfilled. The constitution of the management of every college has
also been provided.
77. The fields which are sought to be covered under the provisions of
Section 37 of the Universities Act and the statutes of various universities
are clearly common to the aspects which are squarely covered by the
specific language under the Act. That being so, all State laws in regard to
affiliation insofar as they are covered by the Act must give way to the
operation of the provisions of the Act. To put it simply, the requirements
which have been examined and the conditions which have been imposed by NCTE
shall prevail and cannot be altered, re-examined or infringed under the
garb of the State law. The affiliating/examining body and the State
Government must abide by the proficiency and command of NCTE’s directions.
To give an example, existence of building, library, qualified staff,
financial stability of the institution, accommodation, etc. are the
subjects which are specifically covered under Section 14(3)(b) of the Act.
Thus, they would not be open to re-examination by the State and the
university. If the recognition itself was conditional and those conditions
have not been satisfied, in such circumstances, within the ambit and scope
of Sections 46 and 16 of the Act, the affiliating body may not give
affiliation and inform NCTE forthwith of the shortcomings and non-
compliance with the conditions. In such situation, both the Central and the
State body should act in tandem and, with due coordination, come to a final
conclusion as to the steps which are required to be taken in regard to both
recognition and affiliation. But certainly, the State Government and the
university cannot act in derogation to NCTE.
78. Now, we may deal with another aspect of this very facet of the case. It
is a very pertinent issue as to what the role of the State should be after
the affiliation is granted by the affiliating body. We have already
discussed that the State opinion, as contemplated under Section 37 of the
University Act, to the extent it admits to overreach, is reconcilable and
its results are not in its orientation to the directives of NCTE are void
and inoperative to the extent they can be resolved in which case clear
precedence is to be given to the directives of NCTE during such resolution.
The opinion of the State, therefore, has to be read and construed to mean
that it would keep the factors determined by NCTE intact and then examine
the matter for grant of affiliation. The role of the State Government is
minimised at this stage which, in fact, is a second stage. It should
primarily be for the university to determine the grant or refusal of
affiliation and role of the State should be the bare minimum, non-
interfering and non-infringing.
79. It is on record and the Regulations framed under the Act clearly show
that upon receiving an application for recommendation, NCTE shall send a
copy of the application with its letter inviting recommendations/comments
of the State Government on all aspects within a period of 30 days. To such
application, the State is expected to respond with its complete comments
within a period of 60 days. In other words, the opinion of the State on all
matters that may concern it in any of the specified fields is called for.
This is the stage where the State and its Department should play a vital
role. They must take all precautions to offer proper comments supported by
due reasoning. Once these comments are sent and the State Government gives
its opinion which is considered by NCTE and examined in conjunction with
the report of the experts, it may grant or refuse recognition. Once it
grants recognition, then such grant attains supremacy vis-à-vis the State
Government as well as the affiliating body. Normally, these questions
cannot be reagitated at the time of grant of affiliation. Once the
university conducts inspection in terms of its statutes or Act, without
offending the provisions of the Act and conditions of recognition, then the
opinion of the State Government at the second stage is a mere formality
unless there was a drastic and unacceptable mistake or the entire process
was vitiated by fraud or there was patently eminent danger to the life of
the students working in the school because of non-compliance with a
substantive condition imposed by either of the bodies. In the normal
circumstances, the role of the State is a very formal one and the State is
not expected to obstruct the commencement of admission process and academic
courses once recognition is granted and affiliation is found to be
acceptable.
80. In Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya the view of this
Court was that the State Government has no role whatsoever. However, in
Bhartia Education Society[4] it was stated that the role of the State
Government was limited to the manner of admission, eligibility criteria,
etc. without interfering with the conditions of recognition prescribed by
NCTE. The exercise of discretion by the State Government and affiliating
body has to be within the framework of the Act, the Regulations and
conditions of recognition. Even in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute[5]
the Court stated that the State Government or the Union Territory has to
necessarily confine itself to the guidelines issued by NCTE while
considering the application for grant of “no-objection certificate”.
Minimisation of the role of the State at the second stage can also be
justified on the ground that affiliation primarily is a subject-matter of
the university which is responsible for admission of the students laying
down the criteria thereof, holding of examinations and implementation of
the prescribed courses while maintaining the standards of education as
prescribed”.
12. After laying down the principles of law, the Court opined that
adherence to the schedule is the essence of granting admission in a fair
and transparent manner as well as to maintain the standard of education.
The Court further observed that:-
“….. None in the hierarchy of the State Government, university, NCTE or any
other authority or body involved in this process can breach the schedule
for any direct or indirect reason. Anybody who is found to be defaulting in
this behalf is bound to render himself or herself liable for initiation of
proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as
well as for a disciplinary action in accordance with the orders of the
Court”.
13. In that context, the Court further proceeded to state:-
“83. Undoubtedly, adherence to the schedule achieves the object of the Act
and its various aspects. Disobedience results in unfair admissions, not
commencing the courses within the stipulated time and causing serious
prejudice to the students of higher merit resulting in defeating the rule
of merit.
84. We may very clearly state here that we adopt and reiterate the schedule
stated by this Court in College of Professional Education in relation to
admission as well as recognition and affiliation. This obviously includes
the commencement of the courses in time. However, in order to avoid the
possibility of any ambiguity, we propose to state the schedule for
recognition and affiliation in terms of the NCTE Regulations, 2009 and the
judgment of this Court in College of Professional Education.
86. There appear to be some overlapping periods and even contradictions
between the dates and periods stated under the regulations inter se and
even with reference to the judgments of this Court prescribing the
schedule. For example, in terms of the judgment of this Court in College of
Professional Education, the last date for grant of affiliation is 10th May
of the year concerned, but as per Regulation 5(5) of the NCTE Regulations,
2009, the last date for grant of recognition is 15th May of the relevant
year. Similarly, there is an overlap between the period specified in
Regulation 7(1) and that under Regulation 7(2). Such overlapping is likely
to cause some confusion in the mind of the implementing authority as well
as the applicant. Thus, it is necessary for this Court to put to rest these
avoidable events and unnecessary controversies.
87. Compelled by these circumstances and to ensure that there exists no
ambiguity, uncertainty and confusion, we direct and prescribe the following
Schedule upon a cumulative reading of the Regulations and judgments of this
Court in relation to recognition and affiliation:
87.1. Schedule for Recognition and Affiliation
|87.1.1.|Submission of |1st September to 1st |
| |applications for |October of the year |
| |recognition in terms of |immediately preceding|
| |Regulation 5(4) |the relevant academic|
| | |year |
|87.1.2 |Communication of |Within 45 days from |
| |deficiencies, |the date of receipt |
| |shortcomings or any other|of the applications |
| |discrepancy in the | |
| |application submitted by | |
| |the applicant to the | |
| |applicant in terms of | |
| |Regulation 7(1) | |
|87.1.3.|Removal of such |Within 60 days from |
| |deficiencies by the |the date of receipt |
| |applicant |of communication |
|87.1.4.|Forwarding of copy of the|Within 90 days from |
| |application to the State |the date of receipt |
| |Government/UT |of the application |
| |Administration for its | |
| |recommendations/comments | |
| |in terms of Regulation | |
| |7(2) | |
|87.1.5 |Recommendations/comments |Within 30 days from |
| |of the State |the date of issue of |
| |Government/UT |letter to it |
| |Administration to be | |
| |submitted to the Regional| |
| |Committee under | |
| |Regulation 7(3) | |
|87.1.6.|If |Within seven days |
| |recommendations/comments |from the date of |
| |are not received within |expiry of the period |
| |30 days, the Regional |of 30 days |
| |Committee shall send to | |
| |the State Government/UT | |
| |Administration a reminder| |
| |letter for submission of | |
| |the | |
| |recommendations/comments | |
|87.1.7.|State Government/UT |Within 15 days from |
| |Administration shall |the date of receipt |
| |furnish the |of such reminder |
| |recommendations/comments |letter |
|87.1.8.|Intimation regarding |Within 10 days from |
| |inspection by the |final scrutiny of the|
| |Regional Committee to the|application |
| |applicant under | |
| |Regulation 7(4) | |
|87.1.9.|Report by the Inspection |20 days thereafter |
| |Committee under | |
| |Regulation 7(5) | |
|87.1.10|Letter of intent to the |10th of February of |
|. |institution with respect |the succeeding |
| |to grant or refusal of |year/relevant year |
| |recognition in terms of | |
| |Regulation 7(9) | |
|87.1.11|Time to comply with |20 days from the date|
|. |certain specified |of issuance of letter|
| |conditions, in terms of |of intent |
| |Regulations 7(10) and | |
| |7(11) | |
|87.1.12|Issuance of formal order |By 3rd March of each |
|. |of recognition |year |
|87.1.13|Last date for submitting |By 10th March of each|
|. |proposal for affiliation |year |
|87.1.14|Forwarding of proposal by|By 10th March of each|
|. |the University to the |year |
| |State Government/UT | |
| |Administration after | |
| |inspection by expert team| |
|87.1.15|Comments to be submitted |By 10th March of each|
| |by the State |year |
| |Government/UT | |
| |Administration, if any | |
|87.1.16|Final date for |By 10th March of each|
|. |issuance/grant of |year |
| |affiliation for the | |
| |relevant academic year | |
87.2. All notices/orders/requirements/letters in terms of the above
schedule or under the provisions of the Act or terms and conditions of
already granted recognition/affiliation shall be sent by the authority
concerned by speed post/e-mail on the address given in the application for
correspondence, etc. and shall be posted on the website of the
Authority/Committee/ Council/Government concerned.
87.3. The recognition and affiliation granted as per the above Schedule
shall be applicable for the current academic year. For example, recognition
granted up to 3-3-2013 and affiliation granted up to 10-5-2013 shall be
effective for the academic year 2013-2014 i.e. the courses starting from 1-
4-2013. For the academic year 2013-2014, no recognition shall be issued
after 3-3-2013 and no affiliation shall be granted after 10-5-2013. Any
affiliation or recognition granted after the above cut-off dates shall only
be valid for the academic year 2014-2015.
87.4. We make it clear that no Authority/person/Council/Committee shall be
entitled to vary the Schedule for any reason whatsoever. Any non-compliance
shall amount to violating the orders of the Court.”
14. We are obliged to state here that there is justification for
reproducing the above paragraphs from the aforesaid decision. The Court
has taken pains to explain the scheme of the Act, role of the university
and the purpose of fixing a time schedule for each purpose. Certain action
of the authorities can be flawed and eventually fall in the sphere of
illegality. It has to be so declared by the Court. In the case at hand,
the benefit could not be extended as the appellants have not maintained the
time schedule fixed by the State Government pursuant to judgments of this
Court. Therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge as well as
the Division Bench cannot be found fault with.
15. The controversy does not end here. The stand of the University is
that the appellant College has admitted students without having the
necessary affiliation for the academic session 2015-16. This kind of
conduct has become a disease, and when the conduct becomes a disaster, it
is a disastrous phenomenon. While dealing with admissions without
affiliation from CBSE, the Court in Sunil Oraon (minor) through guardian
and others v. CBSE and others[6] referred to earlier decisions and was
constrained to state thus:-
“Time and again, therefore, this Court had deprecated the practice of
educational institutions admitting the students without requisite
recognition or affiliation. In all such cases the usual plea is the career
of innocent children who have fallen in the hands of the mischievous
designated school authorities. As the factual scenario delineated against
goes to show that the school has shown scant regards to the requirements
for affiliation and as rightly highlighted by learned counsel for CBSE, the
infraction was of very serious nature. Though the ultimate victims are
innocent students that cannot be a ground for granting relief to the
appellant. …”
16. In Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhash Rahangdale and
others[7]the Court has laid down that:-
“(xv) The students admitted by unrecognised institution and institutions
which are not affiliated to any examining body are not entitled to appear
in the examination conducted by the examining body or any other authorised
agency.”
The Court further proceeded to direct:-
“88. (ii) The result of the students admitted by an unrecognised
institution or by an institution which had not been granted affiliation by
the examining body shall not be declared. The result of the students who
were admitted without qualifying the entrance examination shall also not be
declared. In other words, the students admitted by the private institutions
on their own shall not be entitled to declaration of their result. If any
private institution had not complied with the requirements of completing
the prescribed training, then the result of students of such institution
shall also not be declared.”
17. In National Council for Teacher Education and another v. Venus Public
Education Society and others[8] the two-Judge Bench ingeminating the
anguish of the Court was compelled to observe:-
“… It is urged by him that NCTE had procrastinated its decision at every
stage and such delay was deliberate and, therefore, the Society was
compelled to admit the students and impart education, regard being had to
the fact that there were really no deficiencies. As has been laid down in
many a pronouncement of this Court that without recognition from NCTE and
affiliation from the university/examining body, the educational institution
cannot admit the students. An educational institution is expected to be
aware of the law. The students who take admission are not young in age.
They are graduates. They are expected to enquire whether the institution
has recognition and affiliation. If we allow ourselves to say so, the
institution had given admission in a nonchalant manner. Possibly, its
functionaries harboured the idea that they had incomparable fertile mind.
The students who had taken admission possibly immersed with the idea that
ignorance is a bliss. It is also necessary to state that the institution
had the anxious enthusiasm to commercialise education and earn money
forgetting the factum that such an attitude leads to a disaster. The
students exhibited tremendous anxiety to get a degree without bothering for
a moment whether their effort, if any, had the sanctity of law. ..”
18. Coming to the present case. As is evincible, the University has not
granted affiliation as the schedule for the same was over. No appeal was
preferred by the appellant College. The High Court rightly held that it
cannot issue a writ contrary to the judgment of this Court. However, we
observe that the University shall consider the application for affiliation,
if not considered already, within a span of four weeks and, if the
affiliation is granted, the students who had been granted admission shall
be treated as students as admitted for the academic session which would be
covered by the affiliation to be granted in future. We have so directed so
that the appellant College would not be in a position to admit any other
student after affiliation is granted.
19. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
.............................J.
[Dipak Misra]
..........................., J.
[Shiva Kirti Singh]
New Delhi;
June 29, 2016
-----------------------
[1] (2013) 2 SCC 617
[2] (2013) 2 SCC 721
[3] (2006) 9 SCC 1
[4] (2011) 4 SCC 527
[5] (2003) 3 SCC 321
[6] (2006) 13 SCC 673
[7] (2012) 2 SCC 425
[8] (2013) 1 SCC 223
-----------------------
19
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1894 OF 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) 5995 OF 2016)
(CC NO. 1652 OF 2016)
Committee of Management Anuragi Devi ...Appellants
Degree College & Anr.
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, J.
The first respondents vide its letter no. Aff.333/Seventy-6-2012-2
(356)/2012 dated 12.09.2012, granted prior permission for provisional
affiliation to the appellant for a period of 3 years w.e.f. 01.07.2012 i.e.
for the period 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2015 for imparting Education in the Arts
Faculty for the subjects Hindi, Political Science, Sociology, Medieval
History, Education Sanskrit and Home Science. In pursuance of the aforesaid
Government order No. 333 dated 12.09.2012, the Deen Dayal Upadhyay
Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur vide its letter no. 7539/ Affi.2012 dated
27.11.2012 permitted the appellant to admit the students in the various
subjects of the Arts Faculty.
2. The appellant applied on 10.03.2015, to the University for
constituting an Inspection Panel for granting permanent affiliation to the
University. Upon perusal of the application dated 10.03.2015 submitted by
the aforesaid appellants, the University vide its letter No.
DDUGU/Aff.2015/5096 dated 20.03.2015 constituted an Inspection Panel to
submit status report of the appellant as far as the Infrastructural
Facilities existing in the appellant’s college were concerned. The Regional
Higher Education Officer Gorakhpur submitted its inspection report on
06.11.2015 to the University.
3. As per Time Schedule prescribed by the State Government, the
Inspection Report was not received within the prescribed date. In the
absence of the required Inspection Report, the University did not grant
permanent affiliation to the appellant for the Academic Session
2015-16. No appeal was preferred before the State Government.
4. As the permanent affiliation was not granted the appellant college
preferred a writ petition-C No. 42336 of 2015 and the learned Single Judge
of the High Court taking note of the fact that writ petitions seeking
similar reliefs had been dismissed, vide its order dated 20.08.2015
declined to interfere. However, it observed that “the petitioner would be
entitled for consideration of his claim for the next session”. Being
dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the
appellant preferred Special Appeal No. 610 of 2015 before the Division
Bench.
5. The Division Bench, as the factual scenario would unveil, took note
of the prayer of the college that it was in effect seeking issuance of writ
of mandamus requiring the University to extend temporary affiliation for
the courses of Hindi, Political Science, Sociology, Medieval History,
Education, Sanskrit and Human Science at the graduate level for the
academic session 2015-2016 and accordingly adverted to the reasonings of
the learned Single Judge and concurred with him.
6. It was urged before the Division Bench that application for grant of
permanent affiliation in respect of subjects was made well within time,
that is,12.12.2014; that the three-member committee that was constituted by
the University on 20.3.2015 had visited the institution on 14.4.2015 and
submitted the report; and that the inspection team had recommended
extension of temporary affiliation in respect of subjects in question for
the academic session 2015-2016 but there had been failure on the part of
the University which had caused grave prejudice to the college. The
Division Bench noted the stand of the University, referred to the authority
in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P. and others[1],
reproduced the time schedule fixed in the said judgment and observed that
pursuant to the directions so issued the State Government formulated a time-
frame for consideration of applications for affiliation the particulars of
which stood embodied in the Government Order dated 14 November, 2014 and in
terms of the government order the last date for the grant of affiliation by
a University is fixed as 30 May and a person aggrieved by the decision
taken by the University was entitled to prefer an appeal against the same
by 15 June and the State Government was liable to decide the appeal so
preferred latest by 15 July. The appellate-Bench stated that in the facts
of the case the affiliation was neither granted by the time fixed under the
Government Order dated 14 November, 2014 nor was any appeal preferred
before the State Government and, therefore, bearing in mind the directions
issued in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra), it was not open to
either the second respondent or the State Government to pass orders of
affiliation after 30 May, 2015. Being of this view, it dismissed the intra-
court appeal. Hence, the present appeal by special leave.
7. We have heard Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel for the
appellant, Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned counsel for the respondent-university
and Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of
U.P.
8. At the very beginning, we may note that in College of Professional
Education and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others[2], the Court
recorded that for the academic year 2012-13 and subsequent academic years,
institution and the State Government had arrived at a broad consensus
regarding the procedure and terms and conditions of admission, recognition
and affiliation. The terms and conditions which had been accepted by all
concerned were reproduced in the said judgment. In the said judgment, as
is evident, the Court has referred to the order dated 11.3.2011, and also
provided for the time by which the affiliation could be granted to the
colleges. Paragraph (vi) (b) clearly stipulated that after the counseling
is over, the university concerned will continue to allot the candidates
from the relevant waiting list against the vacant seats till all the seats
in the colleges were filled up and the organizing university would provide
students only to the existing B.Ed college and all those B.Ed colleges
which would get affiliation up to 7.7.2011 would not be considered for
counseling to the year 2011-2012 and for the next consecutive years and
onward the colleges which will get affiliated on or before 10th of May of
that year, would be considered for counseling. Certain affiliations were
granted to the colleges which were interefered with by the High Court
primarily on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to extend the
cut-off date.
9. In Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra), the Court dealing
with various aspects, taking into consideration the provisions of the NCTE
Act, 1993 and the NCTE Rules 1997, opined that:-
“The above enunciated principles clearly show that the Council is the
authority constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of
maintaining education of standards and judging upon the infrastructure and
facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion
is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over the views of the
State as well as that of the university. The Department of the State
concerned and the affiliating university have a role to play but it is
limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guideline or policy
which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the standards laid
down by the Central body. The State can frame its policy for admission to
such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity
with the directives issued by the Central body. In the present cases, there
is not much conflict on this issue, but it needs to be clarified that while
the State grants its approval, and the university its affiliation, for
increased intake of seats or commencement of a new course/college, its
directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in
the conditions for approval granted by the Central authority or Council.
What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem
as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of imparting of education
properly and ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education,
examination and infrastructure for betterment of the educational system.
Only if all these authorities work in a coordinated manner and with
cooperation, will they be able to achieve the very object for which all
these entities exist”.
10. And again:-
“67. In the present case, we are concerned with the provisions of the NCTE
Act which is a Central legislation referable to Schedule VII List I Entry
66. Thus, no law enacted by the State, which is in conflict with the
Central law, can be permitted to be operative.
68. Now, let us examine the conflict that arises in the present cases. In
terms of the provisions of the Act, the Regional Committee is required to
entertain the application, consider State opinion, cause inspection to be
conducted by an expert team and then to grant or refuse recognition in
terms of the provisions of the Act. Once a recognition is granted and
before an institution can be permitted to commence the course, it is
required to take affiliation from the affiliating body, which is the
university.
69. Thus, grant of recognition or affiliation to an institute is a
condition precedent to running of the courses by the institute. If either
of them is not granted to the institute, it would not be in a position to
commence the relevant academic courses. There is a possibility of some
conflict between a University Act or Ordinance relating to affiliation with
the provisions of the Central Act. In such cases, the matter is squarely
answered in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya[3] where the
Court stated that after coming into operation of the Central Act, the
operation of the University Act would be deemed to have become
unenforceable in case of technical colleges. It also observed that
provision of the Universities Act regarding affiliation of technical
colleges and conditions for grant of continuation of such affiliation by
the university would remain operative but the conditions that are
prescribed by the university for grant and continuation of affiliation must
be in conformity with the norms and guidelines prescribed by NCTE”.
11. After so stating, the Court further proceeded to state:-
“76. In terms of Section 37(10), a college which has been affiliated is
entitled to continue the course of study for which the admissions have
already taken place. To give an example, under the statute of Meerut
University, affiliation of new colleges is dealt with under Statutes 13.02
to 13.10 of Chapter XIII. This requires that every application for
affiliation of a college has to be made so as to reach the Registrar in
less than 12 months before the commencement of the course and before an
application is considered by the Executive Council, the Vice-Chancellor
must be satisfied that there is due compliance with the provisions of
Statutes 13.05, 13.06 and 13.07. Besides, it requires the conditions like
adequate financial resources, suitable and sufficient building, adequate
library, two hectares of land, facilities for recreation of students, etc.
to be fulfilled. The constitution of the management of every college has
also been provided.
77. The fields which are sought to be covered under the provisions of
Section 37 of the Universities Act and the statutes of various universities
are clearly common to the aspects which are squarely covered by the
specific language under the Act. That being so, all State laws in regard to
affiliation insofar as they are covered by the Act must give way to the
operation of the provisions of the Act. To put it simply, the requirements
which have been examined and the conditions which have been imposed by NCTE
shall prevail and cannot be altered, re-examined or infringed under the
garb of the State law. The affiliating/examining body and the State
Government must abide by the proficiency and command of NCTE’s directions.
To give an example, existence of building, library, qualified staff,
financial stability of the institution, accommodation, etc. are the
subjects which are specifically covered under Section 14(3)(b) of the Act.
Thus, they would not be open to re-examination by the State and the
university. If the recognition itself was conditional and those conditions
have not been satisfied, in such circumstances, within the ambit and scope
of Sections 46 and 16 of the Act, the affiliating body may not give
affiliation and inform NCTE forthwith of the shortcomings and non-
compliance with the conditions. In such situation, both the Central and the
State body should act in tandem and, with due coordination, come to a final
conclusion as to the steps which are required to be taken in regard to both
recognition and affiliation. But certainly, the State Government and the
university cannot act in derogation to NCTE.
78. Now, we may deal with another aspect of this very facet of the case. It
is a very pertinent issue as to what the role of the State should be after
the affiliation is granted by the affiliating body. We have already
discussed that the State opinion, as contemplated under Section 37 of the
University Act, to the extent it admits to overreach, is reconcilable and
its results are not in its orientation to the directives of NCTE are void
and inoperative to the extent they can be resolved in which case clear
precedence is to be given to the directives of NCTE during such resolution.
The opinion of the State, therefore, has to be read and construed to mean
that it would keep the factors determined by NCTE intact and then examine
the matter for grant of affiliation. The role of the State Government is
minimised at this stage which, in fact, is a second stage. It should
primarily be for the university to determine the grant or refusal of
affiliation and role of the State should be the bare minimum, non-
interfering and non-infringing.
79. It is on record and the Regulations framed under the Act clearly show
that upon receiving an application for recommendation, NCTE shall send a
copy of the application with its letter inviting recommendations/comments
of the State Government on all aspects within a period of 30 days. To such
application, the State is expected to respond with its complete comments
within a period of 60 days. In other words, the opinion of the State on all
matters that may concern it in any of the specified fields is called for.
This is the stage where the State and its Department should play a vital
role. They must take all precautions to offer proper comments supported by
due reasoning. Once these comments are sent and the State Government gives
its opinion which is considered by NCTE and examined in conjunction with
the report of the experts, it may grant or refuse recognition. Once it
grants recognition, then such grant attains supremacy vis-à-vis the State
Government as well as the affiliating body. Normally, these questions
cannot be reagitated at the time of grant of affiliation. Once the
university conducts inspection in terms of its statutes or Act, without
offending the provisions of the Act and conditions of recognition, then the
opinion of the State Government at the second stage is a mere formality
unless there was a drastic and unacceptable mistake or the entire process
was vitiated by fraud or there was patently eminent danger to the life of
the students working in the school because of non-compliance with a
substantive condition imposed by either of the bodies. In the normal
circumstances, the role of the State is a very formal one and the State is
not expected to obstruct the commencement of admission process and academic
courses once recognition is granted and affiliation is found to be
acceptable.
80. In Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya the view of this
Court was that the State Government has no role whatsoever. However, in
Bhartia Education Society[4] it was stated that the role of the State
Government was limited to the manner of admission, eligibility criteria,
etc. without interfering with the conditions of recognition prescribed by
NCTE. The exercise of discretion by the State Government and affiliating
body has to be within the framework of the Act, the Regulations and
conditions of recognition. Even in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute[5]
the Court stated that the State Government or the Union Territory has to
necessarily confine itself to the guidelines issued by NCTE while
considering the application for grant of “no-objection certificate”.
Minimisation of the role of the State at the second stage can also be
justified on the ground that affiliation primarily is a subject-matter of
the university which is responsible for admission of the students laying
down the criteria thereof, holding of examinations and implementation of
the prescribed courses while maintaining the standards of education as
prescribed”.
12. After laying down the principles of law, the Court opined that
adherence to the schedule is the essence of granting admission in a fair
and transparent manner as well as to maintain the standard of education.
The Court further observed that:-
“….. None in the hierarchy of the State Government, university, NCTE or any
other authority or body involved in this process can breach the schedule
for any direct or indirect reason. Anybody who is found to be defaulting in
this behalf is bound to render himself or herself liable for initiation of
proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as
well as for a disciplinary action in accordance with the orders of the
Court”.
13. In that context, the Court further proceeded to state:-
“83. Undoubtedly, adherence to the schedule achieves the object of the Act
and its various aspects. Disobedience results in unfair admissions, not
commencing the courses within the stipulated time and causing serious
prejudice to the students of higher merit resulting in defeating the rule
of merit.
84. We may very clearly state here that we adopt and reiterate the schedule
stated by this Court in College of Professional Education in relation to
admission as well as recognition and affiliation. This obviously includes
the commencement of the courses in time. However, in order to avoid the
possibility of any ambiguity, we propose to state the schedule for
recognition and affiliation in terms of the NCTE Regulations, 2009 and the
judgment of this Court in College of Professional Education.
86. There appear to be some overlapping periods and even contradictions
between the dates and periods stated under the regulations inter se and
even with reference to the judgments of this Court prescribing the
schedule. For example, in terms of the judgment of this Court in College of
Professional Education, the last date for grant of affiliation is 10th May
of the year concerned, but as per Regulation 5(5) of the NCTE Regulations,
2009, the last date for grant of recognition is 15th May of the relevant
year. Similarly, there is an overlap between the period specified in
Regulation 7(1) and that under Regulation 7(2). Such overlapping is likely
to cause some confusion in the mind of the implementing authority as well
as the applicant. Thus, it is necessary for this Court to put to rest these
avoidable events and unnecessary controversies.
87. Compelled by these circumstances and to ensure that there exists no
ambiguity, uncertainty and confusion, we direct and prescribe the following
Schedule upon a cumulative reading of the Regulations and judgments of this
Court in relation to recognition and affiliation:
87.1. Schedule for Recognition and Affiliation
|87.1.1.|Submission of |1st September to 1st |
| |applications for |October of the year |
| |recognition in terms of |immediately preceding|
| |Regulation 5(4) |the relevant academic|
| | |year |
|87.1.2 |Communication of |Within 45 days from |
| |deficiencies, |the date of receipt |
| |shortcomings or any other|of the applications |
| |discrepancy in the | |
| |application submitted by | |
| |the applicant to the | |
| |applicant in terms of | |
| |Regulation 7(1) | |
|87.1.3.|Removal of such |Within 60 days from |
| |deficiencies by the |the date of receipt |
| |applicant |of communication |
|87.1.4.|Forwarding of copy of the|Within 90 days from |
| |application to the State |the date of receipt |
| |Government/UT |of the application |
| |Administration for its | |
| |recommendations/comments | |
| |in terms of Regulation | |
| |7(2) | |
|87.1.5 |Recommendations/comments |Within 30 days from |
| |of the State |the date of issue of |
| |Government/UT |letter to it |
| |Administration to be | |
| |submitted to the Regional| |
| |Committee under | |
| |Regulation 7(3) | |
|87.1.6.|If |Within seven days |
| |recommendations/comments |from the date of |
| |are not received within |expiry of the period |
| |30 days, the Regional |of 30 days |
| |Committee shall send to | |
| |the State Government/UT | |
| |Administration a reminder| |
| |letter for submission of | |
| |the | |
| |recommendations/comments | |
|87.1.7.|State Government/UT |Within 15 days from |
| |Administration shall |the date of receipt |
| |furnish the |of such reminder |
| |recommendations/comments |letter |
|87.1.8.|Intimation regarding |Within 10 days from |
| |inspection by the |final scrutiny of the|
| |Regional Committee to the|application |
| |applicant under | |
| |Regulation 7(4) | |
|87.1.9.|Report by the Inspection |20 days thereafter |
| |Committee under | |
| |Regulation 7(5) | |
|87.1.10|Letter of intent to the |10th of February of |
|. |institution with respect |the succeeding |
| |to grant or refusal of |year/relevant year |
| |recognition in terms of | |
| |Regulation 7(9) | |
|87.1.11|Time to comply with |20 days from the date|
|. |certain specified |of issuance of letter|
| |conditions, in terms of |of intent |
| |Regulations 7(10) and | |
| |7(11) | |
|87.1.12|Issuance of formal order |By 3rd March of each |
|. |of recognition |year |
|87.1.13|Last date for submitting |By 10th March of each|
|. |proposal for affiliation |year |
|87.1.14|Forwarding of proposal by|By 10th March of each|
|. |the University to the |year |
| |State Government/UT | |
| |Administration after | |
| |inspection by expert team| |
|87.1.15|Comments to be submitted |By 10th March of each|
| |by the State |year |
| |Government/UT | |
| |Administration, if any | |
|87.1.16|Final date for |By 10th March of each|
|. |issuance/grant of |year |
| |affiliation for the | |
| |relevant academic year | |
87.2. All notices/orders/requirements/letters in terms of the above
schedule or under the provisions of the Act or terms and conditions of
already granted recognition/affiliation shall be sent by the authority
concerned by speed post/e-mail on the address given in the application for
correspondence, etc. and shall be posted on the website of the
Authority/Committee/ Council/Government concerned.
87.3. The recognition and affiliation granted as per the above Schedule
shall be applicable for the current academic year. For example, recognition
granted up to 3-3-2013 and affiliation granted up to 10-5-2013 shall be
effective for the academic year 2013-2014 i.e. the courses starting from 1-
4-2013. For the academic year 2013-2014, no recognition shall be issued
after 3-3-2013 and no affiliation shall be granted after 10-5-2013. Any
affiliation or recognition granted after the above cut-off dates shall only
be valid for the academic year 2014-2015.
87.4. We make it clear that no Authority/person/Council/Committee shall be
entitled to vary the Schedule for any reason whatsoever. Any non-compliance
shall amount to violating the orders of the Court.”
14. We are obliged to state here that there is justification for
reproducing the above paragraphs from the aforesaid decision. The Court
has taken pains to explain the scheme of the Act, role of the university
and the purpose of fixing a time schedule for each purpose. Certain action
of the authorities can be flawed and eventually fall in the sphere of
illegality. It has to be so declared by the Court. In the case at hand,
the benefit could not be extended as the appellants have not maintained the
time schedule fixed by the State Government pursuant to judgments of this
Court. Therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge as well as
the Division Bench cannot be found fault with.
15. The controversy does not end here. The stand of the University is
that the appellant College has admitted students without having the
necessary affiliation for the academic session 2015-16. This kind of
conduct has become a disease, and when the conduct becomes a disaster, it
is a disastrous phenomenon. While dealing with admissions without
affiliation from CBSE, the Court in Sunil Oraon (minor) through guardian
and others v. CBSE and others[6] referred to earlier decisions and was
constrained to state thus:-
“Time and again, therefore, this Court had deprecated the practice of
educational institutions admitting the students without requisite
recognition or affiliation. In all such cases the usual plea is the career
of innocent children who have fallen in the hands of the mischievous
designated school authorities. As the factual scenario delineated against
goes to show that the school has shown scant regards to the requirements
for affiliation and as rightly highlighted by learned counsel for CBSE, the
infraction was of very serious nature. Though the ultimate victims are
innocent students that cannot be a ground for granting relief to the
appellant. …”
16. In Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhash Rahangdale and
others[7]the Court has laid down that:-
“(xv) The students admitted by unrecognised institution and institutions
which are not affiliated to any examining body are not entitled to appear
in the examination conducted by the examining body or any other authorised
agency.”
The Court further proceeded to direct:-
“88. (ii) The result of the students admitted by an unrecognised
institution or by an institution which had not been granted affiliation by
the examining body shall not be declared. The result of the students who
were admitted without qualifying the entrance examination shall also not be
declared. In other words, the students admitted by the private institutions
on their own shall not be entitled to declaration of their result. If any
private institution had not complied with the requirements of completing
the prescribed training, then the result of students of such institution
shall also not be declared.”
17. In National Council for Teacher Education and another v. Venus Public
Education Society and others[8] the two-Judge Bench ingeminating the
anguish of the Court was compelled to observe:-
“… It is urged by him that NCTE had procrastinated its decision at every
stage and such delay was deliberate and, therefore, the Society was
compelled to admit the students and impart education, regard being had to
the fact that there were really no deficiencies. As has been laid down in
many a pronouncement of this Court that without recognition from NCTE and
affiliation from the university/examining body, the educational institution
cannot admit the students. An educational institution is expected to be
aware of the law. The students who take admission are not young in age.
They are graduates. They are expected to enquire whether the institution
has recognition and affiliation. If we allow ourselves to say so, the
institution had given admission in a nonchalant manner. Possibly, its
functionaries harboured the idea that they had incomparable fertile mind.
The students who had taken admission possibly immersed with the idea that
ignorance is a bliss. It is also necessary to state that the institution
had the anxious enthusiasm to commercialise education and earn money
forgetting the factum that such an attitude leads to a disaster. The
students exhibited tremendous anxiety to get a degree without bothering for
a moment whether their effort, if any, had the sanctity of law. ..”
18. Coming to the present case. As is evincible, the University has not
granted affiliation as the schedule for the same was over. No appeal was
preferred by the appellant College. The High Court rightly held that it
cannot issue a writ contrary to the judgment of this Court. However, we
observe that the University shall consider the application for affiliation,
if not considered already, within a span of four weeks and, if the
affiliation is granted, the students who had been granted admission shall
be treated as students as admitted for the academic session which would be
covered by the affiliation to be granted in future. We have so directed so
that the appellant College would not be in a position to admit any other
student after affiliation is granted.
19. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
.............................J.
[Dipak Misra]
..........................., J.
[Shiva Kirti Singh]
New Delhi;
June 29, 2016
-----------------------
[1] (2013) 2 SCC 617
[2] (2013) 2 SCC 721
[3] (2006) 9 SCC 1
[4] (2011) 4 SCC 527
[5] (2003) 3 SCC 321
[6] (2006) 13 SCC 673
[7] (2012) 2 SCC 425
[8] (2013) 1 SCC 223
-----------------------
19
