Delhi High Court
National Council For Teacher ... vs Akash College Of Education & ... on 20 March, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008,
715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 1
REPORTABLE
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LETTERS PATENT APPEAL Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008,
712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008, 715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008,
718/2008 and 719/2008
Date of Decision: 20th March, 2009
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Appellant
Through Mr. V.K. Rao, Advocate.
versus
AKASH COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR. ..... Respondents
in LPA No. 676/2008.
Through Mr. Sanjay Sharawat,
Advocate.
NARAYANA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION....Respondent in LPA
No. 677/2008.
Through Mr. Sanjay Sharawat,
Advocate.
KESHAV COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ....Respondent in LPA
No. 712/2008.
Through None.
SHARDDHANATH TEACHER EDUCATION...Respondent in
LPA No. 713/2008.
Through Mr. Sanjay Sharawat,
Advocate.
AANASAGAR STC COLLEGE ...Respondent in LPA
No. 714/2008.
Through None.
BUDHA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ORS....Respondents in
LPA No. 715/2008.
Through Mr. Sanjay Sharawat,
Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
R.R. MEMORIAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION...Respondent in
LPA No. 716/2008.
Through None.
LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008,
715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 2
SRI SATYA SAI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION...Respondent in
LPA No. 717/2008.
Through Mr. Sanjay Sharawat,
Advocate.
MAHABIR COLLEGE OF EDU. FOR WOMEN...Respondent
in LPA No. 718/2008.
Through None.
MAHARAJ AGARASAIN COLLEGE OF EDU...Respondent in
LPA No. 719/2008.
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT PRAKASH SHAH, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? Yes.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
These Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by National
Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as NCTE, for
short) against different judgments passed by learned Single Judge
allowing the writ petitions filed by educational institutions. By the
impugned judgments, the appellant-NCTE has been directed to grant
approval to the respondents-educational institutes for additional
intake of students in B.Ed course.
LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008,
715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 3
2. NCTE is a Council established under the provisions of National
Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 with the function to lay down
standards and fix norms for educational institutes conducting and
imparting teacher education and training programmes like B.Ed.
NCTE in 2002 had framed regulations in a consolidated form for grant
of recognition and permission for starting a course in training of
teachers' education. Regulation 8 of the 2002 Regulations relating to
conditions for grant of recognition, however, became subject matter
of relaxation by amendments made in 2005 and 2006.
3. On 27th November, 2007, National Council for Teacher
Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulation, 2007
(hereinafter referred to "2007 Regulations") was framed and they
came into effect on publication in the Official Gazette on 10th
December, 2007. 2007 Regulations prescribe eligibility criteria both
for starting of a new institute, a new course or increase in intake of
students in an existing recognized course.
4. Regulation 5(4) of 2007 Regulations stipulates that the cut off
date for submission of applications for both new courses and
additional intake, to the Regional Committee shall be 31st October of
the preceding year to the academic session for which recognition has
been sought. This obviously created difficulty as the 2007
Regulations were framed and notified after 31st October, 2007 and as
LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008,
715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 4
the stipulation fixing the last date of receipt of applications had been
enacted for the first time. Educational institutes were taken by a
surprise in so far as admission for the academic year 2008-09 was
concerned. By the time 2007 Regulations were framed, last date for
receipt of applications for academic year 2008-09 had expired.
5. We may record here that the NCTE by the Notification dated 1st
July, 2008 has partly modified Regulation 5(5) of the 2007
Regulations in so far as time limit for making of the applications for
recognitions/permissions for the academic courses for the year 2008-
09 are concerned. Educational institutes will be entitled to benefit of
Notification dated 1st July, 2008, which reads as under:-
"Clause 5(5) of the NCTE (Recognition Norms
and Procedure) regulation, 2007 is modified
as under only for grant of
recognition/permission for starting various
teacher training courses for current academic
session i.e. 2008-2009.
All complete applications pending with the
Regional Committee shall be processed for
the current academic session i.e. 2008-2009
in accordance with the provisions of relevant
Regulations and maintaining the chronological
sequence and final decision, either recognition
granted or refused shall be communicated by
31st August, 2008."
6. 2007 Regulations, as per the respondent-educational institutes,
have introduced and inducted stringent and stiff conditions for grant
of recognition to new courses and increase in intake of student called
LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008,
715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 5
units in the recognized educational institutes. Regulations 8(2), 8(3),
8(4), 8(5) and 8(6) read as under:
"Conditions for grant of recognition:
(2) In the first instance, an institution shall be
considered for grant of recognition for only one
course for the basic unit as prescribed in the
norms & standards for the particular teacher
education programme. An institution can apply for
one basic unit of an additional course from the
subsequent academic session. However,
application for not more than one additional course
can be made in a year.
(3) An institution shall be permitted to apply for
enhancement of course wise intake in teacher
education courses already approved after
completion of three academic sessions of running
the respective courses.
(4) An institution shall be permitted to apply for
enhancement of intake in Secondary Teacher
Education Programme-B.Ed & B.P. Ed.
Programme, if it has accredited itself with the
National Assessment and Accreditation Council
(NAAC) with a Letter Grade B developed by
NAAC.
(5) An institution that has been granted
additional intake in B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. teacher
training courses after promulgation of the
Regulations, 2005 i.e. 13.1.2006 shall have to be
accredited itself with the National Assessment and
Accreditation Council (NAAC) with a Letter Grade
B under the new grading system developed by
NAAC before 1st April, 2010 failing which the
additional intake granted shall stand withdrawn
w.e.f. the academic session 2010-11.
(6) All the applications for additional intake in
B.Ed. and B.P.Ed received on or before the date
of this notification in the Gazette of India shall be
considered as per the provisions of the
Regulations 2005 notified on 13-1-06. However,
LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008,
715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 6
the provisions of Regulation 8(5) above shall also
be applicable to them."
7. Several educational institutes filed writ petitions challenging
vires of Regulations 8(2), 8(3), 8(4) and 8(6) and/or failure/rejection of
their request for recognition of new courses or for enhancement of
intake of students.
8. One of such writ petitions which was filed was W.P. (C) No.
1119/2008 titled Shiksha Parishad Kanya Gurukul, Julana Vs.
National Council for Teacher Education. By an interim order dated
11th April, 2008 in the said case, NCTE was directed to consider the
application of the petitioner therein for enhancement/additional intake
of students to B.Ed course. The application was rejected for non-
compliance and failure to meet the conditions of Regulations 8(2) and
8(3) of 2007 Regulations and other reasons. Subsequently on 21st
May, 2008, the Division Bench in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1119/2008
recorded a concession made by NCTE that they would process the
application filed by the petitioner therein without insisting upon
eligibility requirement of three academic sessions and accreditation
with National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC for short)
provided other requirements were met. The said order reads
"WP(C) NO.1119/2008 & CM NO.2184/2008
Learned Counsel for the Respondent
Mr.V.K.Rao submits that a communication has been
LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008,
715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 7
sent by the respondent to the petitioner. He states
that although in the said communication the
eligibility criteria of having three academic sessions
has been mentioned as also the requirement of
having accreditation with NAAC. The respondent for
the purpose of processing and approval of this
application would not insist on these two criterion.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out
that the accreditation from NAAC can be obtained in
time i.e. before 01.04.2010 [Refer page 61 of the
paper book].
Learned counsel for the respondent submits
that there are requirements regarding building
regulations for the specified number of seats which
has to be complied with. He assures that a physical
inspection would be carried out within a week.
Petitioner would be at liberty at that point of time to
satisfy the respondents regarding its compliance
with the building regulations and/or give any
undertaking with regard to the additional coverage,
deletions or alterations as may be required within a
time bound framework.
Renotify on 29th May, 2008."
9. The said writ petition was disposed of on 29th May, 2008 after
recording that NCTE had carried out inspection and was satisfied.
The question regarding challenge to the vires of Regulations 8(3) and
8(4) of the 2007 Regulation was left open. The order dated 29th
May,2008 is as under:-
"WP [C] NO.1119/2008 & CM NO.2184/2008 &
7594/2008
Pursuant to the order passed on 21st May
2008 we are informed that an inspection has been
carried out and an inspection report has been
received by the Counsel which is in a sealed cover.
LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008,
715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 8
Mr Sanjay Sharawat, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submits that the inspection was carried
out in the presence of Petitioner and they were
satisfied with the inspection proceedings.
Mr. V.K.Rao, learned Counsel for the
respondent says that the Regional Committee which
was to consider the report has been dissolved by
the Chairperson.
Let the inspection report be processed by the
competent authority as in our view there can be no
vacuum simply because the Chairperson has
dissolved the concerned committee. If necessary
the Chairperson can take decision itself. Matter be
taken up expeditiously.
The question regarding challenge to the vires
of Regulation 8(3) and 8(4) of National Council for
Teacher Education Regulations is left open.
Writ Petition is disposed of with no order as to
costs.
Order dasti."
10. Similar other writ petitions have been disposed of both by
Division Benches and Single Judges on the basis of orders passed in
W.P. (C) No. 1119/2008 titled Shiksha Parishad Kanya Gurukul,
Julana Vs. National Council for Teacher Education holding, inter
alia, that the NCTE will not insist upon compliance with Regulations
8(3) and 8(5) of the 2007 Regulations.
11. While disposing of the writ petitions, the Division Benches and
the Single Judges have uniformly rejected the contention of NCTE
LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008,
715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 9
that, W.P. (C) No. 1119/2008 titled Shiksha Parishad Kanya
Gurukul, Julana Vs. National Council for Teacher Education was
decided on a concession given by NCTE in the said case and,
therefore, should not be applied to other cases. The contention of
NCTE that concession given was contrary to the 2007 Regulations
was also rejected on the ground that the NCTE must follow the
principle of parity and uniformity, specially as this was the first year
after the 2007 Regulations had come into operation. It was also held
that NCTE had power to relax the Regulations and if relaxation was
granted in the case of Shiksha Parishad Kanya Gurukul, same
relaxation should be granted in other cases.
12. In these circumstances, NCTE filed a review/clarification
application in the disposed of writ petition No.1119/2008 filed by
Shiksha Parishad Kanya Gurukul and the following Order was passed
on 25th July, 2008:-
"RP NO. 253/2008 & CM NO. 10195/2008 IN WP[C]
NO.1119/2008
We have heard learned counsel for the
respondent/review petitioner in support of the review
petition. In the interest of justice, we are disposing of
review petition by allowing CM 10195/2008 i.e.
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
We have perused our orders dated 11th April, 21st
May as well as 29th May, 2008. The orders are self
explanatory and in our view, they do not call for or
require any elaboration or clarification. Mr. V.K.Rao
has been at pain to urge that the statement which he
LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008,
715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 10
made on 21st May, 2008 was following the order
passed on 11th April, 2008 and it was without prejudice
to the rights and contentions and was confined to the
facts of this writ petition. Our orders dated 21st May,
2008 itself records him statement, relevant part of
which is as under:-
".... He states that although in the said
communication, the eligibility criteria of
having three academic session has been
mentioned as also the requirement of having
accreditation with NAAC, the respondent, for
the purpose of processing and approval of
this application (emphasis supplied), would
not insist on these two criteria."
In view of the foregoing and considering that
even while disposing the writ petition on 29th May,
2008 it was recorded that "challenge to the vires of
Regulation 8(3) and 8(4) of National Council for
Teacher Education Regulations is left open", no further
clarification as is sought is required.
Review petition stands disposed of."
13. NCTE has preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme
Court and notices have been issued. Interim stay has also been
granted in cases where recognition has not been granted.
14. In LPA No. 715/2008 titled Budha College of Education and
Others Vs. National Council for Teacher Education, LPA No.
716/2008 titled R.R. Memorial College of Education Vs. National
Council for Teacher Education, LPA No. 718/2008 titled Mahabir
College of Education for Women Vs. National Council for
LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008,
715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 11
Teacher Education and LPA No. 719/2008 Maharaja Agarsain
College of Education Vs. National Council for Teacher Education
permissions/approvals have already been granted. In these
circumstances, therefore, the stay applications as filed by NCTE are
dismissed. In other cases, where permission/approval have not been
granted, the operation of the impugned Order directing grant of
recognition/approval, is stayed.
15. The other issue which requires examination in the present
appeals is in respect of interpretation of Regulations 8(2) and 8(3).
This issue has arisen in LPA Nos.676/2008 and 677/2008 as NCTE
has rejected the applications of the educational institutes, inter alia,
holding that Regulation 8(2) of the 2007 Regulations is applicable
even when an institute applies for additional intake of students in an
existing recognized course. The applications filed have been rejected
under Regulation 8(2) of 2007 Regulations observing:-
" With reference to your letter dated 15.05.08
and as per the cause (sic) 8(2) of the New
Regulations promulgated on 10.12.2007:- "In
the first instance, an institution shall be
considered for grant of recognition for only
one course for the basic unit as prescribed in
the norms and standards for the particular
teacher education programmed(sic). An
institution can apply for one basic unit of
an additional course from the subsequent
academic session. However, application
for not more than one additional course
can be made in a year." (emphasis supplied)
LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008,
715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 12
16. Regulations 8(2) and 8(3) operate in different circumstances.
The 2007 Regulations provide for recognition of an institute at the first
instance, recognition of a new course in earlier recognized institute
and increase in intake of students by a recognized institute in an
earlier recognized course.
17. Regulation 8(2) applies when an application is made by an
institute for obtaining recognition for first time. The said Regulation
stipulates that the institute so applying will be granted recognition in
one course for the basic unit and not in more than one course. After
recognition is granted, the freshly recognized institute can apply for
one basic unit of an additional or a new course but in the subsequent
academic session. Therefore, if an institute is granted recognition in
the academic session 2007-2008, it can apply for one basic unit of an
additional course in the subsequent academic session in 2008-2009
and not earlier. The last part of the said Regulation stipulates that
application can be made only for one additional course in an
academic year. Therefore, an institute cannot apply for more than
one additional course in an academic year.
18. Regulation 8(3), on the other hand, does not deal with
recognition of an institute for the first time or recognition of an
additional course for the first time in a recognized institute.
Regulation 8(3) of 2007 Regulations deals with enhancement of the
LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008,
715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 13
course wise intake, i.e. increase in number of students, which can be
admitted to an already recognized course in a recognized institute.
19. Thus, the field and the area of operation of Regulations 8(2)
and 8(3) are different. Regulation 8(2) applies to an institute which
seeks recognition for the first time in respect of a course. In such
cases, the institute is entitled to undertake one course with intake of
one basic unit only in the initial year when recognition is granted.
Further, a recognized institute can apply and seek recognition for one
additional course but in the subsequent academic year. Regulation
8(3) permits/allows educational institutes to apply for and seek
permission for increase in number of units or students which can be
admitted to course which are already approved. In this regard, we
agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge interpreting
Regulations 8(2) and 8(3). To this extent we do not find any merit in
the present appeals filed by NCTE.
20. During the course of hearing, NCTE has stated that Akash
College of Education and S.S. College of Education have withdrawn
their application for grant of permission. If this is correct, the said
institutes will not be entitled to benefit of this order. Accordingly,
Appeals filed by NCTE on the question of interpretation of
Regulations 8(2) and 8(3) of the 2007 Regulations are dismissed.
However, all the Appeals on the question of compliance with
LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008,
715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 14
Regulations 8(2), 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5) are admitted. The stay
applications in LPA Nos. 715, 716, 718 and 719/2008 are dismissed
as NCTE has already granted approval/permission. In other Appeals
where permission/approval has not been granted, the operation of the
impugned Order/judgments is stayed. Liberty is granted to the
parties to make an application for early hearing and disposal of the
Appeals after the decision of the Supreme Court.
(SANJIV KHANNA)
JUDGE
(AJIT PRAKASH SHAH)
CHIEF JUSTICE
MARCH 20, 2009
VKR/P
