Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Balaji Bstc College, Hanumangarh ... on 30 August, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Madan Gopal Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 244/2022
In
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15553/2021
State of Rajasthan, through Director, Elementary Education,
Education Directorate, Bikaner.
----Appellant/Respondent
Versus
1. Central Modern Teachers Training College, K.no. 208/1,
Gujrawas, Main Banad Road, Tehsil and District Jodhpur
Run and Managed by Central Modern and Educational
Society, 190 Laxmi Nagar, Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)
through its Secretary Smt. Sneh Tomar W/o Col. (Retd.)
Narendra Singh Tomar, Aged About 66 years, R/o 190,
Laxmi Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.).
Respondent/Petitioner
2. The Western Regional Committee, National Council For
Teachers Education, through its Under Secretary, Plot
No. G7, Sector 10, Near National Highway Authority,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
----Respondent
Connected with
(2) D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 257/2022
In
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17217/2021
State of Rajasthan, through Director, Elementary Education,
Education Directorate, Bikaner.
----Appellant/Respondent
Versus
1. Chandigram Teacher Training Institute, Bairasar
Chhota, Rajgarh, Churu, Managed by Chandigram
Memorial Welfare Society, Bairasar Chhota, Rajgarh,
Churu (Raj.) through its Secretary Ashish Kumar S/o
Megha Ram Singh, Aged 46 years, R/o 102, Bus Stand,
Kheri, Lambor Beri, Churu (Rajasthan)
Respondent/Petitioner
2. The Western Regional Committee, National Council For
Teachers Education, through its Under Secretary, Plot
(Downloaded on 31/08/2022 at 09:48:14 PM)
(2 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
No. G7, Sector 10, Near National Highway Authority,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
----Respondent
(3) D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 141/2022
In
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9461/2021
State of Rajasthan, through Director, Elementary Education,
Education Directorate, Bikaner
----Appellant/Respondent
Versus
1. Shri Hari Shikshak Prashikshan School, Sardarsahar,
District Churu (Raj.) Running by Society of Shri Hari
Shikshak Prashikshan Sansthan Sardarsahar, District
Churu (Raj.) through its Secretary Pawan Kumar Sharma
S/o Mangilal Sharma, aged about 42 years, Resident of
Ward No.23, Near Kisan Hostel, Sardar Shahar, District
Churu (Raj.).
Respondent/Petitioner
2. The Western Regional Committee, National Council For
Teachers Education, through its Under Secretary, Plot No.
G7, Sector 10, Near National Highway Authority, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
----Respondent
(4) D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 142/2022
In
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9462/2021
State of Rajasthan, through Director, Elementary Education,
Education Directorate, Bikaner.
----Appellant/Respondent
Versus
1. Savitri Devi Prashikshan Sansthan, Udairamsar, Bikaner
Running by Society of Murli Singh Yadav Memorial
Prashikshan Sansthan, Udairamsar, Bikaner (Raj.)
through its Secretary Kuldeep Yadav S/o Manmohan
Singh Yadav, Aged 43 years, Resident of Karni Coach,
Udairamsar, District Bikaner (Rajasthan).
Respondent/Petitioner
(Downloaded on 31/08/2022 at 09:48:14 PM)
(3 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
2. The Western Regional Committee, National Council For
Teachers Education, through its Under Secretary Plot No.
G7, Sector 10, Near National Highway Authority, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
----Respondent
(5) D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 143/2022
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9640/2021
State of Rajasthan, through Director, Elementary Education,
Education Directorate, Bikaner.
----Appellant/Respondent
Versus
1. Murli Singh Yadav Memorial Prashikshan Sansthan,
Udairamsar, Bikaner Running by Society of Murli Singh
Yadav Memorial Prashikshan Sansthan, Udairamsar,
Bikaner (Raj.) through its Secretary, Shri Kuldeep Yadav
S/o Manmohan Singh Yadav, Aged 43 years, Resident of
Karni Coach, Udairamsar, District Bikaner (Raj.).
Respondent/Petitioner
2. The Western Regional Committee, National Council For
Teachers Education through its Under Secretary, Plot No.
G7, Sector 10, Near National Highway Authority, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
----Respondent
(6) D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 147/2022
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9586/2021
State of Rajasthan, through Director, Elementary
Education, Education Directorate, Bikaner.
----Appellant/Respondent
Versus
1. Vivekanand Vidya Ashram Teacher Training School, Katar
Chhoti, Tehsil Bidasar, Churu (Raj.) Running by Society of
Vivekanand Vidya Ashram Sansthan, Katar Chhoti, Tehsil Bidasar,
Churu (Raj.) through its Secretary Shri Ram Chandra Legha S/o
Shri Laxmanram Aged About 45 years, R/o Katar Chhoti, Tehsil
Bidasar, Chruru (Raj.)
Respondent/Petitioner
(Downloaded on 31/08/2022 at 09:48:14 PM)
(4 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
2. The Western Regional Committee, National Council For
Teachers Education through its Under Secretary, Plot No. G7,
Sector 10, Near National Highway Authority, Dwarka, New Delhi.
----Respondent
(7) D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 152/2022
In
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9523/2021
State of Rajasthan, through Director, Elementary Education,
Education Directorate, Bikaner.
----Appellant/Respondent
Versus
1. Balaji Bstc College, Hanumangarh Junction, Running by
Society of Baby Happy Modern Shiksha Samiti,
Hanumangarh Junction (Raj.) through its Secretary, Shri
Ashish Vijay S/o Shri Bhagwan Das Gupta, Aged 35
years, R/o Ward No. 12, Hanumangarh Junction (Raj.).
Respondent/Petitioner
2. The Western Regional Committee, National Council For
Teachers Education, through its Under Secretary, Plot No.
G7, Sector 10, Near National Highway Authority, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
----Respondent
(8) D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 158/2022
In
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9788/2021
State of Rajasthan, through Director, Elementary Education,
Education Directorate, Bikaner
----Appellant/Respondent
Versus
1. Swami Dayanand Shikshan Avam Vikas Sansthan, Plot
No. 101/40 Rawla Road, Village Khajuwala, District
Bikaner through its Secretary Dalip Kumar S/o Shri
Bhoop Ram, Aged 45 years, R/o Village Khajuwala, Tehsil
Khajuwala, District Bikaner (Rajasthan).
Respondent/Petitioner
2. The Western Regional Committee, National Council For
Teachers Education through its Under Secretary, Plot No.
G7, Sector 10, Near National Highway Authority, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
(Downloaded on 31/08/2022 at 09:48:14 PM)
(5 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
----Respondents
(9) D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 200/2022
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 453/2022
State of Rajasthan, through Director, Elementary Education,
Education Directorate, Bikaner.
----Appellant/Respondent
Versus
1. Om College of Education, Plot No. 1147, 1147/1325,
Village Milakpur, Post Manchal, Behror, District Alwar Run
and Managed by Om Shiksha Samiti, Milakpur, Post
Manchal, Behror, District Alwar through its Secretary
Avinash Yadav S/o Omprakash Yadav, aged 53 years,
Resident of Ward No. 01, Behror, District Alwar.
Respondent/Petitioner
2. The Western Regional Committee, National Council For
Teachers Education, through its Secretary, Plot No. G7
Sector 10, Near National Highway Authority, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
----Respondent
(10) D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 201/2022
In
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10528/2021
State of Rajasthan, through Director, Elementary Education,
Education Directorate, Bikaner.
----Appellant/Respondent
Versus
1. Shri Krishna Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidhyalaya, Plot
No 50, Laxmangarh, Jalooki, Bharatpur Running by
Society of Pd. Late Nannuram Jankalyan Sanstha, Nagar,
Bharatpur (Raj.) through its Secretary Shanti Swaroop
Sharma S/o Nannuram Sharma, Aged 61 years, R/o
Behind Bus Stand, Nagar, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
Respondent/Petitioner
2. The Western Regional Committee, National Council For
Teachers Education, through its Under Secretary, Plot No.
G7, Sector 10, Near National Highway Authority, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 31/08/2022 at 09:48:14 PM)
(6 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
(11) D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 205/2022
In
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 505/2022
State of Rajasthan, Through Director, Elementary Education,
Education Directorate, Bikaner.
----Appellant/Respondent
Versus
1. Choudhary Teacher Training College, Sangteda, Kotputli,
District Jaipur Run and Managed by Choudhary
Educational Institute, Sangteda, Kotputli, District Jaipur
through its Secretary Santosh W/o Satveer Singh, Aged
36 years, Resident of Village Sangteda, Kotputli, District
Jaipur.
Respondent/Petitioner
2. The Western Regional Committee, National Council For
Teachers Education, through its Under Secretary, Plot
No.G7, Sector 10, Near National Highway Authority,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
----Respondent
(12) D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 206/2022
In
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 503/2022
State of Rajasthan, through Director, Elementary Education,
Education Directorate, Bikaner.
----Appellant/Respondent
Versus
1. Ashtha College of Education, Kanwarpura, Kotputli,
District Jaipur Run and Managed by Nav Bharti Seva
Samiti, Kanwarpura, Kotputli, District Jaipur through its
Secretary Mehar Singh Yadav S/o Bhagwan Singh Yadav,
Aged 47 years, Resident of Village Kanwarpura, Tehsil
Kotputli, District Jaipur.
Respondent/Petitioner
2. The Western Regional Committee, National Council For
Teacher Education, through its Under Secretary, Plot No.
G7, Sector 10, Near National Highway Authority, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 31/08/2022 at 09:48:14 PM)
(7 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
For Appellants : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Additional
Advocate General assisted by Mr.
Rishi Soni, AAAG.
Mr. Deepak Chandak, AGC.
For Respondents : Mr. C.S. Kotwani Advocate.
Mr. Vivek Shrimali Advocate for NCTE.
Mr. T.C. Sharma Advocate assisted by
mr. Ram chandra Singh Advocate and
Mr. Ashish Gehlot Advocate.
Mr. B.S. Sandhu Advocate with Mr.
Kanishk Singhvi Advocate.
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Judgment
REPORTABLE
30/08/2022
By the Court:(Per Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Acting CJ.)
This Judgment shall govern disposal of all the appeals,
which have been filed by the State and were heard analogously.
2. These appeals, preferred by the State, arise out of a
common order passed by the learned Single Judge in Surender
Kaur Memorial College of Higher Education Vs. State of Rajasthan
and Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2359/2021 and batch of
writ petitions decided on 23.10.2021) raising common issues and
ventilating grievance against the State. Some of the appeals filed
by the State are those where learned Single Judge, relying upon
it's lead common order passed in the case of Surender Kaur
Memorial College of Higher Education (supra) has disposed off
individual petitions granting relief. Since, in all the appeals,
common issue arises for consideration, therefore, they are being
disposed off by this common judgment.
(8 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
3. The respondents-writ petitioners in this batch of
appeals set up infrastructure to commence/continue
B.Ed./D.El.Ed./STC Course in their respective institutions. As
grant of recognition to such institutions is admittedly governed
and regulated by the National Council for Teacher Education Act,
1993 (for short 'the NCTE Act of 1993') and regulations framed
thereunder namely, the National Council for Teacher Education
(Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (for short
'the NCTE Regulations of 2014'), the respondents-writ petitioners
moved applications for grant of recognition before the competent
authority under the provisions of the NCTE Act of 1993 and the
NCTE Regulations of 2014. Their applications were processed and
finally, National Council for Teacher Education (for short 'the
NCTE'), after scrutinising eligibility criteria, issued Letters of Intent
(LoI) to respective respondents-writ petitioners.
4. However, when the respective respondents-writ
petitioners approached the State and the concerned University for
granting staff approval, as required under the NCTE Regulations of
2014, the State/University concerned did not accord necessary
approval. The respondents-writ petitioners approached this Court
by filing writ petitions seeking issuance of appropriate directions in
the nature of Mandamus to the affiliating bodies to conduct
inspection and grant staff approval.
5. Learned Single Judge vide common order, as stated
above as also the orders passed in individual cases relying upon
common order passed in the case of Surender Kaur Memorial
College of Higher Education (supra), allowed the writ petitions
with direction to the affiliating authority, namely, the State of
(9 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
Rajasthan or the University, as the case may be, to carry out the
exercise of granting staff approval in a time bound manner, though
after being satisfied about the norms set by the NCTE/competent
authority in that regard with a further direction to communicate
acceptance or rejection to all concerned. The State, being
aggrieved by the said directions of the learned Single Judge, has
filed these appeals assailing the correctness and validity of such
directions issued by the learned Single Judge in all the cases.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on
behalf of the appellant-State would argue that even though the
learned Single Judge did not interfere with the policy (guidelines)
dated 20.07.2021, by which School Education Department of the
State Government has decided not to grant NOC, yet proceeded to
hold that once No Objection Certificate (NOC)/LoI to an institution
has been issued by the NCTE/Regional Committee, the policy
decision, which has been taken on 20.07.2021, cannot be made
applicable to the cases of the respondents-writ petitioners whose
applications for grant of recognition have reached at the final or
advanced stage. He would argue that finding of the learned Single
Judge that the guidelines could not be applied retrospectively is
erroneous in law. Learned Additional Advocate General would
contend that the policy dated 20.07.2021, in clear terms, stated
that as there are adequate number of institutions already existing
and operating in the State for granting Diploma in Elementary
Education and Diploma in Physical Education for the Session 2020-
21 and subsequent Sessions, it would no longer recommend or
grant No Objection Certificate for opening of new courses. For the
same reason, the State also took a policy decision that no
(10 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
recognition would be granted, nor any No Objection Certificate
would be issued to private educational institutions, who have
submitted their applications earlier.
It is the submission of learned Additional Advocate
General that the State has an important role, which is clearly
recognised under the scheme of the NCTE Act of 1993 as also the
NCTE Regulations of 2014 whereunder the State has all the
authority to take policy decision to grant or not to grant NOC to
proposal for establishing new institutions whether such
applications have been made earlier, including those applications
which have been submitted after issuance of policy dated
20.07.2021. Learned Additional Advocate General highlighted that
the State is in the best position to judge whether or not adequate
number of educational institutions are available in the State for
providing Diploma in Elementary Education and Diploma in
Physical Education. The State, based on its own data and
information collected through its agencies, has taken a conscious
decision that as there are sufficient number of educational
institutions running courses in D.El.Ed. and D.Ph.Ed. in the State,
looking to availability of such degree holders, employment
opportunities, it found that it is no longer necessary, at this stage,
to keep on granting NOCs for establishing new institutions
whether they have been granted LoIs on the basis of applications
filed prior to policy decision or after the policy decision.
7. Learned Additional Advocate General reiterated
appellants' stand taken before the learned Single Judge and
referring to policy dated 20.07.2021, submitted that the State had
already communicated its policy decision to the NCTE. Even
(11 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
thereafter, the NCTE has been issuing Letters of Intent and
recognition letters in favour of private educational institutions.
Consistent with its policy decision, therefore, the State
Government has decided not to grant staff approval/new
recognition/proposal for enhancement of intake capacity and on
that basis, it decided not to allow all such private educational
institutions to participate in the counseling for admission in
D.El.Ed. Courses, which had been proposed by the respondents-
private institutions. He would further highlight that the State had
earlier granted NOCs to the respective institutions-writ petitioners
for particular year of 2019-20 only when the State had opened the
windows for the institutions. However, by the time, the NCTE
processed those applications, issued LoIs and when an occasion
reached to grant staff approval, the State has now taken a policy
decision on 20.07.2021 for the reasons stated in the policy
decision itself. He would further submit that once, on the basis of
information collected by the State, it is found that sufficient
number of institutions are already in operation, there is no scope
or requirement of any other private institution. On such relevant
and valid considerations, the decision of the State could not be
faulted. It is within the authority of the State to regulate number
of institutions with a view to ensure that quality education
imparted by the institutions situated in the State is not
compromised. He would further submit that the respondents-writ
petitioners have failed to satisfy the Court by placing appropriate
document that the State had granted NOCs in terms of Regulation
5(3) of the NCTE Regulations of 2014, yet relief has been granted
to all the writ petitioners on such assumption of State having
(12 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
granted NOCs. He would further submit that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in various decisions has discussed the role of the State to
keep check on mushrooming growth of educational institutions
and it has been succinctly held that the State has a definite role to
play in the matter of establishment of new educational institutions
even though the NCTE is the competent authority to grant
recognition for opening of new courses/training and/or to grant
permission for increase in intake capacity. In support of his
contentions, learned Additional Advocate General has relied upon
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of St.
Johns Teachers Training Institute Vs. Regional Director,
National Council for Teacher Education and Another, (2003)
3 SCC 321; Government of A.P. and Another Vs. J.B.
Educational Society and Another, (2005) 3 SCC 212;
National Council for Teacher Education and Others Vs. Shri
Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan and Others, (2011) 3
SCC 238 and A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University
and Another Vs. Jai Bharath College of Management and
Engineering Technology and Others, (2021) 2 SCC 564.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respective
respondents-writ petitioners made almost common submissions in
reply to the contentions raised by learned Additional Advocate
General and supporting the orders passed by the learned Single
Judge and argued that in the case of all the respondents-writ
petitioners, Letters of Intent (LoIs) have already been issued to
them after scrutiny of their eligibility criteria, infrastructure
availability and other required conditions on each and every
aspect, entitling them for grant of recognition by the NCTE. The
(13 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
respondents-writ petitioners, towards fulfillment of various
eligibility criteria, have altered their position. It was common
submission of learned counsel for respective respondents-writ
petitioners that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the
policy decision dated 20.07.2021 could not be made a basis to
refuse to grant NOC even in those cases where Letters of Intent
had already been issued by the NCTE, is in accordance with law,
as the effect of applying the policy decision not only to those, who
intend to move application for grant of recognition to the NCTE
after 20.07.2021, but to the respondents-writ petitioners, in
whose cases when the ban was not operative by the State itself,
NOCs were granted at earlier stages of processing of the
applications followed by issuance of Letters of Intent by the NCTE,
would amount to application of the policy decision retrospectively.
It is only at a later stage, when the State was required to grant
approval for staff, the State has sought to apply its policy to all
pending cases where Letters of Intent had been issued by the
NCTE and, therefore, in essence, the policy is sought to be made
effective retrospectively.
9. On a larger canvass, learned counsel for the
respondents would argue that even otherwise, in view of the
series of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has
been very well settled that the State has a limited role to play and
the entire field in the matter of grant of recognition is occupied by
central legislation, i.e., the NCTE Act of 1993 and the regulations
framed thereunder from time to time. The State, it is contended,
can only send its views recommending/rejecting of applications to
the NCTE under the statutory scheme, which is not binding on the
(14 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
NCTE. Present is not a case where the NCTE having accepted the
State's recommendations, has either refused to grant LoIs or
subsequently withdrawn LoIs issued in favour of the respective
institutions. Therefore, the State could not withhold staff approval
in the garb of policy decision dated 20.07.2021, much less apply it
retrospectively. It has also been contended that Letters of Intent
were issued by the NCTE prior to policy decision dated
20.07.2021. It is also submitted that the provisions of the NCTE
Regulations of 2014 clearly show that the applications are
processed at the NCTE level and LoI is granted only when at initial
stage, NOC is granted by the State. Therefore, it is not within the
authority of the State to withhold staff approval as such power is
not reserved in favour of the State either under the scheme of the
NCTE Act of 1993 or under the NCTE Regulations of 2014. To
buttress this submission, learned counsel for the respondents
have referred to the various provisions of the NCTE Regulations of
2014. None of the provisions contained in the NCTE Regulations
of 2014 anywhere contemplate that the applications would be
treated as rejected after the cut off date but on the other hand, as
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maa Vaishno
Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others, (2013) 2 SCC 617, recognition could always be granted
in the next academic year. Further relying upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Council for
Teacher Education and Others Vs. Shri Shyam Shiksha
Prashikshan Sansthan and Others (supra), it has been
contended that even after refusal by the State, it is within the
authority of the NCTE to grant recognition as the NCTE is not
(15 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
bound by the recommendations of the State. Reliance has also
been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
cases of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Others (supra) as also State of
Rajasthan Vs. LBS B.Ed. College and Others, (2016) 16 SCC
110. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Single
Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur in the case of Smt.
Dhapubai BSTC College Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13291/2020 and batch of
petitions decided on 23.10.2021). Heavy reliance has been
placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases
of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan
Shastra Mahavidyalaya and Others, (2006) 9 SCC 1 and St.
Johns Teachers Training Institute Vs. Regional Director,
National Council for Teacher Education and Another
(supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme has settled the legal
position with regard to the role of the State in the matter of
recognition of teachers training and education courses governed
by the NCTE Act of 1993 and the regulations framed thereunder.
Therefore, State's action of withholding of staff approval, that too
in respect of those to whom LoIs had already been granted prior
to policy decision dated 20.07.2021, has been rightly held illegal
by the learned Single Judge.
Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon
decisions of Single Bench of this Court in the cases of Sanskar
T.T. College Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S. B. Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 679/2017 and batch of petitions
decided on 07.02.2017) and B.D.M.L. Shikshan Sansthan Vs.
(16 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
The State of Rajasthan & Others (S. B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 1712/2021 and batch of petitions decided on
06.10.2021) as also decisions of Delhi High Court in the cases of
Om College of Education Vs. National Council for Teacher
Education & Others (W.P.(C) No. 2069/2021 along with
one another writ petition decided on 16.07.2021) and Shri
Ram College of Education Vs. National Council for Teacher
Education & Others (W.P.(C) No. 6392/2021 and batch of
petitions decided on 12.08.2021).
10. We have heard learned counsel for the respective
parties, perused the record as also decisions cited at the bar by
learned counsel for the respective parties and the common
judgment and individual orders passed by the learned Single
Judge in respect of writ petitions, which have given rise to these
appeals at the instance of the State.
11. Learned Single Judge, though did not decide the issue
of validity of the policy decision, leaving it open, proceeded to
decide the cases on the aspect as to whether the policy decision
dated 20.07.2021 could be applied to the cases before it.
Indisputably, all the respondents-writ petitioners are those, who
had applied for grant of recognition and after processing of their
applications, the NCTE issued Letters of Intent prior to policy
decision dated 20.07.2021. In this regard it was held by the
learned Single Judge in common order dated 23.10.2021 passed
in the case of Surender Kaur Memorial College of Higher Education
(supra) as under:
"25. Indisputably, the decision has been taken by
the state on 20.07.2021, whereas applications of
all the institutions involving present batch of cases,
(17 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
were not only filed prior thereto but even the
letters of intent have been issued by the NCTE and
their applications for recognition have reached the
stage of grant of staff approval under Regulation
No.7(13) of the Regulations of 2014."
12. Learned Single Judge was of the view that once an
application has been field by an institution with NOC, the NCTE
Regulations of 2014 do not envisage any further NOC and the role
of the State is limited. Learned Single Jude went on holding that
if LoI has been issued in favour of an institution, the State has to
ensure that staff or faculty appointed by an institution is as per
norms, relying upon Regulation 7 (13) of the NCTE Regulations of
2014 that the institution is required to submit a list of faculty duly
approved by the affiliating body, to the Regional Committee.
In para 26 of the aforesaid order, learned Single Judge
also held that it is not within the authority of the State or
University or the affiliating body to refuse to conduct staff
approval on account of the fact that there are sufficient number of
institutions/colleges operating in the State, at least when Letter of
Intent has been issued to an institution by the NCTE.
13. Learned Single Judge also examined the State's
contention whether it has the power to restrict the number of
institutions coming up in the State and if yes, what is the stage.
Referring to the provisions contained in Regulation 5(e) and 5(f)
of the Regulations in force prior to coming into force the NCTE
Regulations of 2014 as also Regulation 5, sub-clause (3) of the
NCTE Regulations of 2014, it has been held that neither earlier
Regulations, nor Regulations of 2014 give such a power to the
State to restrict the number of institutions. Learned Single Judge
also referred to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
(18 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
case of St. Johns Teachers Training Institute Vs. Regional
Director, National Council for Teacher Education and
Another (supra), particularly the observations with reference to
guidelines dated 02.02.1996 issued by the NCTE regarding grant
of NOC and held that the State could raise an objection and
recommend to restrict the number of private colleges/institutions
if the circumstances so warrant at the stage of issuing NOC as
required under Regulation 5(3) of the NCTE Regulations of 2014,
but once NOC to an institution has been issued, it is at a later
stage when the policy decision, which has been taken
subsequently on 20.07.2021, cannot be made applicable to the
cases of the respondents-writ petitioners whose applications for
recognition have reached at final or advanced stage of issuance of
Letters of Intent by the NCTE/Regional Committee.
It has also been held that institutions, which have
created infrastructure for establishing the colleges and more
particularly, the institutions in whose favour Letters of Intent have
been issued by the NCTE, cannot be deprived of their rights of
running a teacher education programme and admit students, if
they otherwise fulfill requisite eligibility criteria, of course, once
recognition has been granted.
14. The National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993
(Act No. 73 of 1993) was enacted by the Parliament and amended
from time to time to provide for the establishment of a National
Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieve planned and
co-ordinated development of the teacher education system
throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of
norms and standards in the teacher education system including
(19 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
qualifications of school teachers and for matters connected
therewith. Section 3 thereof provides for establishment of the
Council. Chapter III of the NCTE Act of 1993 makes provisions
regarding functions of the Council. Section 12 of the NCTE Act of
1993 provides that it shall be the duty of the Council to take all
such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-
ordinated development of teacher education and for the
determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education
and for the purpose of performing its functions under the NCTE
Act of 1993, the Council may:
"(a) undertake surveys and studies relating to
various aspects of teacher education and publish
the result thereof;
(b) make recommendations to the Central and
State Government, Universities, University Grants
Commission and recognised institutions in the
matter of preparation of suitable plans and
programmes in the field of teacher education;
(c) co-ordinate and monitor teacher education and
its development in the country;
(d) lay down guidelines in respect of minimum
qualifications for a person to be employed as a
teacher *** in recognised institutions; (e) lay down
norms for any specified category of courses or
trainings in teacher education, including the
minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof,
and the method of selection of candidates, duration
of the course, course contents and mode of
curriculum;
(f) lay down guidelines for compliance by
recognised institutions, for starting new courses or
training, and for providing physical and instructional
facilities, staffing pattern and staff qualification;
(g) lay down standards in respect of examinations
leading to teacher education qualifications, criteria
for admission to such examinations and schemes of
courses or training;
(h) lay down guidelines regarding tuition fees and
other fees chargeable by recognised institutions;
(i) promote and conduct innovation and research in
various areas of teacher education and disseminate
the results thereof;
(j) examine and review periodically the
implementation of the norms, guidelines and
(20 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
standards laid down by the Council, and to suitably
advise the recognised institutions;
(k) evolve suitable performance appraisal system,
norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability
on recognised institutions;
(l) formulate schemes for various levels of teacher
education and identify recognised institutions and
set up new institutions for teacher development
programmes;
(m) take all necessary steps to prevent
commercialisation of teacher education; and
(n) perform such other functions as may be
entrusted to it by the Central Government."
15. Clause (f) of Section 12 of the NCTE Act of 1993 makes
it clear that it is the Council, which is empowered under the law to
lay down the guidelines for compliance by recognised institutions,
for starting new courses or training and for providing physical and
instructional facilities, staffing patter and staff qualification.
Section 12A of the NCTE Act of 1993 confers power on the Council
to determine minimum standards of education of school teachers.
Section 13 of the NCTE Act of 1993 provides for inspection.
16. Chapter IV of the NCTE Act of 1993 makes provisions
with regard to recognition of teacher education institutions. While
Section 14 of the NCTE Act of 1993 makes elaborate provision
with regard to power of recognition of institution offering courses
of training in teacher education, Section 15 of the NCTE Act of
1993 provides for permission for a new course or training by
recognised institution.
17. Chapter VII of the NCTE Act of 1993 contains
miscellaneous provisions. Section 27 of the NCTE Act of 1993
provides for delegation of powers and functions. Section 29 of the
NCTE Act of 1993 provides that the Council shall, in the discharge
of its functions and duties under the Act, be bound by such
directions on questions of policy as the Central Government may
(21 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
give in writing to it from time to time and that the decision of the
Central Government as to whether the question is one of policy or
not shall be final.
18. Section 31 of the NCTE Act of 1993 confers power on
the Central Government to make rules to carry out the provisions
of the Act. Section 32 of the NCTE Act of 1993 confers power on
the Council to make regulations not inconsistent with the
provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, generally to
carry out the provisions of the Act.
19. In exercise of powers under Section 32 of the NCTE Act
of 1993, the Council earlier framed the regulations known as
National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and
Procedure) Regulations, 2009, which were subsequently repealed
and substituted by new regulations vide notification dated
28.11.2014, called the National Council for Teacher Education
(Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014. Elaborate
provisions have been made in the NCTE Regulations of 2014 with
regard to applicability, eligibility, manner of making application
and time limit, facilities, process of application, conditions for
grant of recognition, norms and standards, financial management,
academic calendars as also the power to relax.
20. Regulation 7 of the NCTE Regulations of 2014, which
deals with processing of applications, provides as below:
"7. Processing of applications.-- (1) In case an
application is not complete, or requisite documents
are not attached with the application, the
application shall be treated : incomplete and
rejected, and application fees paid shall be
forfeited.
(2) The application shall be summarily rejected
under one or more of the following circumstance--
(22 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
(a) failure to furnish the application fee, as
prescribed under rule 9 of the National Council for
Teacher Education Rules, 1997 on or before the
date of submission of online application;
(b) failure to submit print out of the applications
made online alongwith the land documents as
required under sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 5
within fifteen days of the submission of the online
application
(3) Furnishing any false information or concealment
of facts in the application, which may have bearing
on the decision making process or the decision
pertaining to grant of recognition, shall result in
refusal of recognition of the institution besides
other legal action against its management. The
order of refusal of recognition shall be passed after
giving reasonable opportunity through a show
cause notice to the institution.
(4) A written communication alongwith a copy of
the application form submitted by the institution
shall be sent by the office of Regional Committee to
the State Government or the Union territory
administration and the affiliating body concerned
within thirty days from the receipt of application, in
chronological order of the receipt of the original
application in the Regional Committee.
(5) On receipt of the communication, the State
Government or the Union territory administration
concerned shall furnish its recommendations or
comments to the Regional Committee concerned
within forty five days from the date of issue of the
letter to the State Government or Union territory,
as the case may be. In case, the State Government
or Union Territory Administration is not in favour of
recognition, it shall provide detailed reasons or
grounds thereof with necessary statistics, which
shall be taken into consideration by the Regional
Committee concerned while disposing of the
application.
(6) lf the recommendation of the State Government
is not received within the aforesaid period, the
Regional Committee concerned shall send a
reminder to the State Government providing further
time of another thirty days to furnish their
comments on the proposal. In case no reply is
received, a second reminder shall be given for
furnishing recommendation within fifteen days from
the issue of such second reminder. In case no reply
is received from the State Government within
aforesaid period the Regional Committee shall
process and decide the case on merits and placing
the application before the Regional Committee shall
not be deferred on account of non-receipt of
comments or recommendation of the State
Government.
(23 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
(7) After consideration of the recommendation of
the State Government or on its own merits, the
Regional Committee concerned shall decide that
institution shall be inspected by a team of experts
called visiting team with a view to assess the level
of preparedness of the institution to commence the
course. In case of open and distance learning
programmes, sampled study centres shall be
inspected. Inspection shall not be subject to the
consent of the institution, rather the decision of the
Regional Committee to cause the inspection shall be
communicated to the institution with the direction
that the inspection shall be caused on any day after
ten days from the date of communication by the
Regional Office. The Regional Committee shall
ensure that inspection is conducted ordinarily within
thirty days from the date of its communication to
the institution. The institution shall be required to
provide details about the infrastructure and other
preparedness on the specified proforma available
on the website of the Council to the visiting team at
the time of inspection along with building
completion certificate issued by the competent civil
authority, if not submitted earlier:
Provided that the Regional Committee shall
organise such inspections strictly in chronological
order of the receipt of application for the cases to
be approved by it:
Provided further that the members of the
visiting team for inspection shall be decided by the
Regional Committee out of the panel of experts
approved by the Council and in accordance with the
visiting team policy of the Council.
(8) At the time of the visit of the team of experts to
an institution, the institution concerned shall
arrange for the inspection to be videographed in a
manner that all important infrastructural and
instructional facilities are videographed along with
interaction with the management and the faculty, if
available at the time of such visit. The visiting
teams, as far as possible, shall finalise and courier
their reports alongwith the video recordings on the
same day:
Provided that the videography should clearly
establish the outer view of the building, its
surroundings, access road and important
infrastructure including classrooms, labs, resource
rooms, multipurpose hall, library and others. The
visiting team shall ensure that the videography is
done in a continuous manner, the final unedited
copy of the videography is handed over to them
immediately after its recording and its conversion to
a CD should be done in the presence of visiting
team members:
(24 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
Provided further that at the time of inspection
for new courses or enhancement of intake of the
existing course, the visiting team shall verify the
facilities for existing recognized teacher education
courses and ascertain the fulfillment and
maintenance of regulations and norms and
standards for the existing courses as well.
(9) The application and the report alongwith the
video recordings or CDs of the visiting team shall
be placed before the Regional Committee concerned
for consideration and appropriate decision. (10) The
Regional Committee shall decide grant of
recognition or permission to an institution only after
satisfying itself that the institution fulfills all the
conditions prescribed by the National Council under
the Act, rules or regulations, including, the norms
and standards laid down for the relevant teacher
education programmes,
(11) ln the matter of grant of recognition, the
Regional Committees shall strictly act within the
ambit of the Act, the regulations made thereunder
including the norms and standards for various
teacher education programmes, and shall not make
any relaxation thereto.
(12) The Regional Director, who is the convener of
the Regional Committee, while putting up the
proposals to the Regional Committee, shall ensure
that the correct provisions in the Act, rules or
regulations including norms and standards for
various teacher education programmes are brought
to the notice of the Regional Committee so as to
enable the Committee to take appropriate
decisions.
(13) 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 Government or University Grants
Commission or University may be initiated and the
institution be provided all assistance to ensure that
the staff or faculty is appointed as per the norms of
the Council within two months. The institution shall
submit the list of the faculty, as approved by the
affiliating body, to the Regional Committee.
(14) (i) All the applicant institutions shall launch
their own website with hyperlink to the Council and
corresponding Regional Office websites soon after
the receipt of the letter of intent from the Regional
Committee, covering, inter alia, the details of the
institution, its location, name of the programme
(25 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
applied for with intake; availability of physical
infrastructure, such as land, building, office,
classrooms, and other facilities or amenities;
instructional facilities, such as laboratory and library
and the particulars of their proposed teaching
faculty and non-teaching staff with photographs, for
information of all concerned. The information with
regard to the following shall also be made available
on the website, namely:-
(a) sanctioned programmes along with annual
intake in the institution;
(b) name of faculty and staff in full as mentioned in
school certificate along with their qualifications,
scale of pay and photograph;
(c) name of faculty members who left or joined
during the last quarter;
(d) names of students admitted during the current
session along with qualification, percentage of
marks in the qualifying examination and in the
entrance test, if any, date of admission and such
other information;
(e) fee charged from students;
(f) available infrastructural facilities;
(g) facilities added during the last quarter;
(h) number of books in the library, refereed
journals subscribed to, and additions, if any, in the
last quarter.
(ii) The institution shall be free to post additional
relevant information, if it so desires.
(iii) Any false or incomplete information on its
website shall render the institution liable for
withdrawal of recognition.
(15) The institution concerned, after appointing the
requisite faculty or staff as per the provisions of
norms and standards of respective programmes,
and after fulfilling the conditions under regulation 8,
shall formally inform about such appointments to
the Regional Committee concerned.
(16) 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
Receipts of Endowment Fund and Reserve Fund
have been converted into a joint account and after
receipt of the said details, the Regional Committee
concerned shall issue a formal order of recognition
which shall be notified as provided under the Act.
(17) In cases, where the Regional Committee, after
consideration of the report of the visiting team and
other facts on record, is of the opinion that the
institution does not fulfill the requirements for
starting or conducting the course or for
enhancement of intake, after giving an opportunity
of being heard to the institution pass an order
refusing to allow any further opportunity for
(26 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
removal of deficiencies or inspection for reasons to
be recorded in writing: provided that against the
order passed by the Regional Committee, an appeal
to the Council may be preferred as provided under
section 18 of the Act.
(18) The reports of inspection of the institutions
along with the names of the visiting team experts
shall be made available on the official website of
the Regional Committee concerned after the same
have been considered by the Regional Committee.
(19) The Regional Committee shall process the
application for closure in the manner prescribed for
the processing of applications for new programmes
or additional programmes or additional intake."
From various provisions contained in the aforesaid
regulation, it is clear that after submission of application to the
concerned Regional Committee for recognition in the prescribed
form along with processing fees and requisite documents in the
manner prescribed therein, if it is found that the application is not
complete or requisite documents are not attached with the
application, the application shall be treated incomplete and
rejected and the application fees paid shall be forfeited. It also
provides for summary rejection in one or more circumstances, as
provided in sub-regulation (2).
Sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 7 of the NCTE
Regulations of 2014 provides for written communication along
with copy of application form submitted by the institution to the
State Government or the Union Territory administration and the
affiliating body concerned within 30 days from the receipt of
application, in chronological order of the receipt of the application
in the Regional Committee.
Sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 7 of the NCTE
Regulations of 2014 provides that on receipt of communication,
the State Government or the Union Territory administration
(27 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
concerned shall furnish its recommendation or comments to the
Regional Committee concerned within 45 days from the date of
issue of the letter to the State Government or Union Territory, as
the case may be. In case the State Government or Union Territory
administration is not in favour of the recognition, it shall provide
detailed reasons or grounds thereof with necessary statistics,
which shall be taken into consideration by Regional Committee
concerned while disposing of the application.
Sub-regulation (6) of Regulation 7 of the NCTE
Regulations of 2014 provides for consequences where
recommendation of the State Government is not received within
the stipulated period or within the extended period. Similarly,
sub-regulation (7) of Regulation 7 of the NCTE Regulations of
2014 provides that after consideration of the recommendation of
the State or on its own merits, the Regional Committee concerned
shall decide that institution shall be inspected by the team of
experts or a visiting team and every steps to be taken towards
consideration in the matter of grant of recognition.
21. After completion of various stages of processing of
application as envisaged in sub-regulations (8) to (12), sub-
regulation (13) of Regulation 7 of the NCTE Regulations of 2014
provides that the institution concerned shall be informed, through
a letter of intent, regarding decision for grant of recognition or
permission subject to appointment of qualified faculty members
before the commencement of academic session. It further
provides that the letter of intent issued 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
(28 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
staff as per policy of State Government or University Grants
Commission or University may be initiated and the institution be
provided all assistance to ensure that staff or faculty is appointed
as per the norms of the NCTE within two months. It further
provides that the institution shall submit the list of the faculty, as
approved by the affiliating body, to the Regional Committee.
22. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions would clearly show
that at the initial stages of processing of application, as provided
under sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 7 of the NCTE Regulations
of 2014, the State concerned shall furnish its recommendations or
comments to the Regional Committee concerned.
At a later stage, as contemplated under sub-regulation
(13) of Regulation 7 of the NCTE Regulations of 2014, the
affiliating body whether it be the State or the University may
approve the list of faculty so that the institution may submit the
approved list of faculty to the Regional Committee.
23. Thus, the scheme of the NCTE Act of 1993 and the
NCTE Regulations of 2014, which completely keep the entire field
occupied in the matter of grant of recognition for opening of
institutions covered under the aforesaid provisions, provide for a
limited role to be played by the State. Importantly, at the initial
stages of process of the application, the State is entitled to sent
its recommendations or comments to the Regional Committee
concerned within stipulated or extended period. However, the
scheme of the NCTE Act of 1993 and the NCTE Regulations of
2014 nowhere provides that any such recommendations or
comments of the State shall be binding on the Regional
Committee though the Regional Committee is required to take the
(29 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
same into consideration. The power to grant or not to grant
recognition ultimately vests with the Regional Committee of the
NCTE as provided in sub-regulation (10) of Regulation 7 of the
NCTE Regulations of 2014.
24. It is not the case of the State in these appeals that at
the initial stage of processing of the applications, the State had
objected to grant of recognition to respondents-institutions. The
stage where the State Government has now come out with new
policy dated 20.07.2021 is when after due process of application
and issuance of LoIs, the State was required to consider approval
of the list of faculty as submitted to it by the respondents-
institutions, in terms of the provisions contained in sub-regulation
(13) of Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 2014.
25. Letter dated 20.07.2021, which is said to be policy
decision of the State, states that the State has already
communicated its negative recommendations to the NCTE for not
granting recognition to new institutions or for increase in intake
capacity of existing institutions. However, there is nothing on
record to show that acting on such recommendations made by the
State Government, a decision has been taken to reject the
applications for grant of recognition for opening of private teacher
training institutions for conducting courses of Diploma in
Elementary Education and Diploma in Physical Education as
applied for by the respondents-institutions.
26. It being not in dispute that the policy decision was
taken on 20.07.2021, i.e., after Letters of Intent had already been
issued in favour of the respondents by the Regional Committee of
the NCTE and there being no material on record to show that
(30 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
because of the recommendations of the State Government in the
form of policy dated 20.07.2021, having not been accepted by the
NCTE or Regional Committee of the NCTE, the policy of the State
at least to the extent of those cases where applications were
already filed, obviously processed by following procedure laid
down in Regulation 7 including the stage where the State could
have made recommendations not to allow opening up new
institutions, up to the stage of issuance of Letters of Intent in
terms of the provisions contained in the NCTE Regulations of
2014, now, at this stage, the State could not refuse to consider
prayer for approval of list of faculty as envisaged in sub-regulation
(13) of Regulation 7 of the NCTE Regulations of 2014.
27. Learned Additional Advocate General for the State has
placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of St. Johns Teachers Training Institute Vs.
Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education
and Another (supra), Government of A.P. and Another Vs.
J.B. Educational Society and Another (supra) and National
Council for Teacher Education and Others Vs. Shri Shyam
Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan and Others (supra) in respect
of stand of the State that the State possesses the power to refuse
NOC or to reject the application for grant of said approval.
28. The role of the State Government in the matters of
granting recognition under the scheme of the NCTE Act of 1993
framed thereunder was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar
Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and Others (supra) in the
light of constitutional scheme as well as statutory scheme of the
(31 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
NCTE Act of 1993. The regulations in force at that point of time
called the National Council for Teacher Education (Form of
Application for Recognition, the Time-limit of Submission of
Application, Determination of Norms and Standards for
Recognition of Teacher Education Programmes and Permission to
Start New Course or Training) Regulations, 1995. Relying upon its
earlier decision in the case of St. Johns Teachers Training
Institute Vs. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher
Education and Another (supra) as also Jaya Gokul
Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner and Secretary to
Government Higher Education Department, (2000) 5 SCC
231; Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara
Swamigal Medical Educational & Charitable Trust Vs. State
of T.N. (1996) 3 SCC 15, State of T.N. Vs. Adhiyaman
Educational and Research Institute (1995) 4 SCC 104 and
Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh Vs. State of
Maharashtra (1986) 4 SCC 361, it was held as below:
"62. From the above decisions, in our judgment,
the law appears to be very well settled. So far as
coordination and determination of standards in
institutions for higher education or research,
scientific and technical institutions are concerned,
the subject is exclusively covered by Entry 66 of
List I of Schedule VII to the Constitution and the
State has no power to encroach upon the legislative
power of Parliament. It is only when the subject is
covered by Entry 25 of List III of Schedule VII to
the Constitution that there is a concurrent power of
Parliament as well as the State Legislatures and
appropriate Act can be made by the State
Legislature subject to limitations and restrictions
under the Constitution.
63. In the instant case, admittedly, Parliament has
enacted the 1993 Act, which is in force. The
Preamble of the Act provides for establishment of
National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) with
a view to achieving planned and coordinated
development of the teacher-education system
(32 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
throughout the country, the regulation and proper
maintenance of norms and standards in the
teacher-education system and for matters
connected therewith. With a view to achieving that
object, the National Council for Teacher Education
has been established at four places by the Central
Government. It is thus clear that the field is fully
and completely occupied by an Act of Parliament
and covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII. It
is, therefore, not open to the State Legislature to
encroach upon the said field. Parliament alone could
have exercised the power by making appropriate
law. In the circumstances, it is not open to State
Government to refuse permission relying on a State
Act or on "policy consideration".
64. Even otherwise, in our opinion, the High Court
was fully justified in negativing the argument of the
State Government that permission could be refused
by the State Government on "policy consideration".
As already observed earlier, policy consideration
was negatived by this Court in Thirumuruga
Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal
Medical Educational & Charitable Trust Vs. State of
T.N. (1996) 3 SCC 15, as also in Jaya Gokul
Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner and Secretary
to Government Higher Education Department,
(2000) 5 SCC 231.
65. xxxxx
66. xxxxx
67. xxxxx
68. In view of the fact, however, that according to
us, the final authority lies with NCTE and we are
supported in taking that view by various decisions
of this Court, NCTE cannot be deprived of its
authority or power in taking an appropriate decision
under the Act irrespective of absence of no
objection certificate by the State Government/Union
Territory. Absence or non-production of NOC by the
institution, therefore, was immaterial and irrelevant
so far as the power of NCTE is concerned.
74. It is thus clear that the Central Government
has considered the subject of secondary education
and higher education at the national level. The Act
of 1993 also requires Parliament to consider
teacher-education system "throughout the country".
NCTE, therefore, in our opinion, is expected to deal
with applications for establishing new BEd colleges
or allowing increase in intake capacity, keeping in
view the 1993 Act and planned and coordinated
development of teacher-education system in the
country. It is neither open to the State Government
nor to a university to consider the local conditions
or apply "State policy" to refuse such permission. In
fact, as held by this Court in cases referred to
hereinabove, the State Government has no power
(33 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
to reject the prayer of an institution or to overrule
the decision of NCTE. The action of the State
Government, therefore, was contrary to law and
has rightly been set aside by the High Court.
75. The decision relied on by Vidharbha Sikshan
Vyawasthapak Mahasangh Vs. State of Maharashtra
(1986) 4 SCC 361, has no application to the facts of
the case. In that case, the power was with the
State Government to grant or refuse permission to
open BEd college. Considering the fact that if
permission would be granted, there would be a
large-scale unemployment, it was decided by the
State Government not to allow new BEd colleges to
be opened. It was held by this Court that such
policy decision could not be said to be arbitrary or
otherwise unreasonable. The Court in that case was
not concerned with the power or authority of the
State Government vis-à-vis the Central Government
and the Act of Parliament. In the present case, as
the field was fully occupied by Entry 66 of List I of
Schedule VII to the Constitution and Parliament has
enacted the 1993 Act, it was not open to the State
Legislature to exercise power by making an
enactment. Such enactment, as per the decisions of
this Court, would be void and inoperative. It would
be unthinkable that if the State Legislature could
not have encroached upon a field occupied by
Parliament, it could still exercise power by
executive fiat by refusing permission under the
"policy consideration". The contention of the State
Government, therefore, has to be negatived.
76. xxxxxxxxxx. We may, however, observe that
the learned counsel for NCTE, Mr. Raju
Ramachandran is right in submitting that the
guidelines permitted the State Government to
collect necessary data and materials and make
them available to NCTE so as to enable NCTE to
take an appropriate decision. In accordance with
the provisions of the 1993 Act, final decision can be
taken only by NCTE and once a decision is taken by
NCTE, it has to be implemented by all authorities in
the light of the provisions of the Act and the law
declared by this Court. It has been so held in St.
Johns Teachers Training Institute Vs. Regional
Director, National Council for Teacher Education and
Another, (2003) 3 SCC 321."
29. In the case of National Council for Teacher
Education and Others Vs. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan
Sansthan and Others (supra) also, relying upon the decision in
the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar
(34 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and Others (supra), it was
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as below:
"40. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar
Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and Others (2006)
9 SCC 1, this Court considered the question
whether, after grant of recognition by NCTE, the
State Government can refuse to issue no-objection
certificate for starting BEd colleges on the premise
that a policy decision in that regard had been
taken. After adverting to the relevant provisions of
the Constitution, the Act and the Regulations and
the judgment in St. Johns Teachers Training
Institute Vs. Regional Director, National Council for
Teacher Education and Another, (2003) 3 SCC 321,
the Court held that final authority to take decision
on the issue of grant of recognition vests with the
NCTE and it cannot be denuded of that authority on
the ground that the State Government/Union
Territory Administration has refused to issue NOC."
In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has also taken into consideration its earlier decision in the case of
Government of A.P. and Another Vs. J.B. Educational
Society and Another (supra).
30. Reliance placed by the learned Additional Advocate
General on various decisions to buttress his submission that the
State has a voice in the matter of grant of recognition even under
the scheme of the NCTE Act of 1993 and the regulations framed
thereunder from time to time is clearly recognised but at the initial
stage of processing of applications as envisaged in sub-regulation
(4) of Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 2014. However, in view
of the decisions referred to above, it is crystal clear that such
recommendations are not binding and the NCTE is empowered
under the law to take its own decision in a given case or in cases
whether or not State's recommendations should be acted upon.
31. In the present case, policy dated 20.07.2021 has been
applied retrospectively denying list of approved staff at a later
(35 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
stage of processing of applications for grant of recognition without
there being any acceptance of recommendations of the State by
the NCTE/ its Regional Committee.
32. Reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological
University and Another Vs. Jai Bharath College of
Management and Engineering Technology and Others
(supra) is misplaced in law as in that case, the issue arising for
determination by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether power
of Syndicate to lay down the norms for grant of affiliation when
there is absence of statutes of University is ultra vires the 2015
University Act and whether the University can go beyond the
AICTE Regulations. It was held that the University/State
Government concerned has the power to fix higher eligibility
criteria than the minimum prescribed by Central Governing
Body/Affiliating Body to achieve the excellence in education.
33. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, which have been referred to hereinabove,
particularly the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs.
Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and
Others (supra), we do not consider it necessary to burden our
decision with other judgments rendered by this Court and other
High Courts.
34. Though learned Single Judge has not decided the
validity of policy decision dated 20.07.2021, but only decided
retrospective applicability aspect, we have referred to various
decisions as above, which deal with limited power of the State in
the matter of grant of recognition and that a unilateral policy
(36 of 36) [SAW-244/2022]
decision could not be applied retrospectively by the State in the
cases of the respondents, leaving open other issues, as observed
by learned Single Judge.
35. In view of above considerations and reasons in addition
to those, which have been assigned by learned Single Judge to
allow the writ petitions, in our considered opinion, the appeals
filed by the State are devoid of substance and are, therefore,
liable to be dismissed.
36. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
37. The office is directed to place a copy of this judgment
on record of each connected appeal.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ
Manoj Narwani/**
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
