Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9193 OF 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 22637 of 2015)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN … Appellant
VERSUS
LBS B.ED. COLLEGE AND ORS. … Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. _9184, 9187, 9190, 9191, 9182,
9185, 9189, 9180, 9181, 9183, 9186, 9188, 9192 OF
2016
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 29129, 29133, 29134,
27621, 29130, 24700, 31128, 29132, 24699, 29135,
24698 of 2015, S.L.P.(C) Nos.27286 of 2016 (CC No.
20115/2015) and 4311 of 2016)
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeals, by special leave, call in question
the legal acceptability of the common order dated
22.01.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature for
2
Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal
(Writ) No. 1866 of 2014 whereby the Division Bench has
allowed the students to be admitted for the academic year
2015-2016 subject to fulfillment of the new guidelines
issued by the National Council for Teacher Education
(NCTE) on 28.11.2014. At the very inception, it is seemly to
note that the directions issued by the High Court have
already been given effect to and neither the learned counsel
for the State of Rajasthan nor the NCTE, the respondent
herein, nor the other respondents have any kind of dispute
over the same.
3. The crux of the controversy is whether the State
Government has any say in the matter of grant of
recognition to the institutions who apply for establishing
institutions to get recognition from the NCTE under the
National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for
brevity, “the Act”) and the Regulations framed thereunder.
It is necessary to state here that the learned Single Judge
had arrived at the conclusion that the State has remotely
any authority or say in the matter of grant of recognition
and the Division Bench has concurred with the judgment of
3
the learned single Judge without adverting to the said
aspect.
4. We have heard Mr. P.S. Narsimha, learned Additional
Solicitor General along with Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma,
learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan, Mr. Gaurav
Sharma, learned counsel for the NCTE and Ms. Vibha Dutta
Makhija, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Anand
Varma, learned counsel for the respondents.
5. The Act was enacted to provide for the establishment of
a National Council for Teacher Education with a view to
achieving 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 and for matter connected
therewith. The Act came into force on 30th December, 1993.
To appreciate the issue that has emanated for
consideration, it is necessary to understand the scheme of
the Act. Section 3 deals with establishment of the NCTE.
Section 12 enumerates the functions of the NCTE. We think
it appropriate to reproduce Section 12, in entirety:-
4
“12. Functions of the Council.-- 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
purposes of performing its functions under
this Act, 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 schools or 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;
5
(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 standards laid down
by the Council, and to suitably
advise the recognised institution;
(k) evolve suitable performance
appraisal system, norms and
mechanism 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;
6
(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.”
6. Section 32 of the Act empowers the NCTE, by
notification in the official gazette, 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. The NCTE had framed a set of Regulations, i.e.,
National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms
and Procedure) Regulations, 2009. The Regulations were
superseded and another set of Regulations, namely, the
National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms
and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (For short, “the 2014
Regulations”) came into force. Regulation 4 deals with
eligibility which stipulates the categories of institutions who
are eligible for consideration of the applications under the
2014 Regulations. Regulation 5 deals with the manner of
making application and the time limit. Regulation 7
provides for processing of applications. The relevant part of
the said Regulation which is pertinent for the adjudication
7
of the controversy that has emanated herein, is extracted
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
circumstances--
(i) 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;
(ii) failure to submit print out of the
applications made online along with the land
documents as required under sub-regulation
(4) of Regulation 5 within fifteen days of the
submission of the online application.
xxx xxx xxx
(4) A written communication along with 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
8
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) If 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.
(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
9
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 officer. 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 so the
visiting team at the time of inspection along
with building completion certificate issue 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.”
7. Before we advert to the impact of the scheme of the
Regulations, it is necessary to refer to the authorities of this
Court that have stated about the role of the State in the
context of grant of recognition by the NCTE under the
provisions of the Act.
10
8. In State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar
Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors.1
, a
three-Judge Bench, after adverting to the legislative power
of the Parliament, the provisions of the Act, the power
conferred on the NCTE under the Act and the role ascribed
to the universities, eventually opined as follows:-
“78. The respondents have stated that they
have spent huge amount and incurred
substantial expenditure on infrastructure,
library, staff, etc. and after satisfying about the
necessary requirements of law, permission had
been granted by the NCTE. If the said action is
set aside on the basis of the decision of the
State Government, irreparable loss will be
caused to them. Since in our view, the order
passed and action taken by NCTE cannot be
termed illegal or unlawful and the State
Government could not have passed the
impugned order refusing permission on the
ground of so called 'policy' of not allowing new
B.Ed. college to be opened, it is not necessary
for us to delve into further the said contention.
79. Before parting with the matter, we may
state that at one stage, the High Court has
observed that
"in so far as the University is concerned,
considering the provisions of Section 15 of
the NCTE Act, once permission has been
granted under Section 14, the University is
bound to grant affiliation in terms of the
Act, Rules and Statutes. Section 83 requires
1 (2006) 9 SCC 1
11
the University to grant affiliation only after
permission is granted under Section 82 of
the Maharashtra University Act. To that
extent the provisions of Section 82 and 83
are inconsistent with the provisions of NCTE
Act and are null and void".?
(emphasis supplied)
80. In our opinion, the observations that the
provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of the
Maharashtra University Act are "null and void"
could not be said to be correct. To us, it
appears that what the High Court wanted to
convey was that the provisions of Sections 82
and 83 would not apply to an institution
covered by 1993 Act. As per the scheme of the
Act, once recognition has been granted by
NCTE under Section 14(6) of the Act , every
university ('examining body') is obliged to grant
affiliation to such institution and sections 82
and 83 of the University Act do not apply to
such cases.
81. Since we have decided the matters on
merits, we have not dealt with preliminary
objection raised by the colleges that the State
cannot be said to be 'person aggrieved' and,
therefore, has no locus standi to challenge the
decision of NCTE.”
9. After the pronouncement of the judgment, the NCTE
and the States followed their due course of action. With the
passage of time, controversy arose relating to the role of the
State again in National Council for Teacher Education &
others v. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan
12
& others2
. The Court referred to various Regulations
framed by the NCTE after the judgment was rendered in
Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya
(supra) and observed as follows:-
“31. By fixing 31st October of the preceding
year, the Council has ensured that the
Regional Committee gets at least 7 months for
scrutiny of the application, processing
thereof, receipt of
recommendation/suggestion from the State
Government/Union Territory Administration,
inspection of the infrastructure, etc. made
available by the applicant before an objective
decision is taken to grant or not to grant
recognition. Likewise, by fixing 15th May of
the year succeeding the cut-off date fixed for
submission of application, the Council has
ensured that adequate time is available to the
institution to complete the course, teaching
as well as training and the students get an
opportunity to comply with the requirement of
minimum attendance. For academic session
2008-2009, the cut-off date was amended
because the 2007 Regulations were notified
on 27.12.2007 and going by the cut off dates
specified in clauses (4) and (5) of Regulation
5, no application could have been entertained
and no institution could have been recognized
for B.Ed. course.”
10. It is worthy to note here that the two-Judge Bench
referred to the authority in St. Johns Teachers Training
Institute v. Regional Director, National Council for
2 (2011) 3 SCC 238
13
Teacher Education and another3
, reproduced certain
passages from the said decision and other authorities
including the understanding of the Court as regards the
authority in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra
Mahavidyalaya (supra) and finally observed:-
“40. In State of Maharashtra v. Sant
Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra
Mahavidyalaya and others (supra), this Court
considered the question whether, after grant of
recognition by NCTE, the State Government
can refuse to issue no objection certificate for
starting B.Ed. 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. John Teachers Training
Institute v. Regional Director, NCTE (supra),
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.”
11. Almost in continuity, the Court in Adarsh Shiksha
Mahavidyalaya & others v. Subhash Rahangdale &
others4
addressed the issue whether the State Government
has any say in the matter of grant of recognition to the
private institutions desirous of conducting teacher training
courses. The Court referred to the 2005 and 2007
3 (2003) 3 SCC 321
4 (2012) 2 SCC 425
14
Regulations and opined that the rationale behind the said
provisions is discernible from the guidelines issued by the
NCTE vide letter dated 2.2.1996. Be it noted, the relevant
portions of the said letter was reproduced in Sant
Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya
(supra). Explaining various aspects, the Court ultimately
ruled thus:-
“77. The above survey of precedents makes it
clear that under Regulation 7(2) and (3), the
State Government/Union Territory
Administration is entitled to make
recommendations on the application made for
grant of recognition and the same are required
to be considered by the concerned Regional
Committee before taking a final decision on the
application.
78. Learned counsel for the appellants did
not seriously contest the position that the
provisions contained in Sections 14(3) and
15(3) read with Regulation 7(2), (3),(4), (5) and
(9) are mandatory and the Regional Committee
cannot grant recognition unless it is satisfied
that the applicant has fulfilled the mandatory
conditions prescribed in the 1993 Act and the
Regulations. They also did not dispute that in
view of Section 16, examining body cannot
grant affiliation, whether provisional or
permanent to any institution or hold
examination for the courses of training
conducted by a recognized institution unless
the institution concerned has obtained
recognition under Section 14 or permission for
a course or training under Section 15.”
15
12. While enumerating the conclusions in seriatim, the
Court held:-
“87. As a sequel to the above discussion, we
hold that the impugned orders do not suffer
from any legal infirmity warranting
interference by this Court. We also reiterate
that:
(i) The Regional Committees established
under Section 20 of the 1993 Act are duty
bound to ensure that no private institution
offering or intending to offer a course or
training in teacher education is granted
recognition unless it satisfies the conditions
specified in Section 14(3)(a) of the 1993 Act
and Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations.
Likewise, no recognised institution intending
to start any new course or training in teacher
education shall be granted permission unless
it satisfies the conditions specified in Section
15(3)(a) of the 1993 Act and the relevant
Regulations.
(ii) The State Government/UT
Administration, to whom a copy of the
application made by an institution for grant of
recognition is sent in terms of Regulation 7(2)
of the Regulations, is under an obligation to
make its recommendations within the time
specified in Regulation 7(3) of the Regulations.
(iii) While granting recognition, the Regional
Committees are required to give due weightage
to the recommendations made by the State
Government/UT Administration and keep in
view the observations made by this Court in
St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v.
Regional Director, NCTE (supra) and National
16
Council for Teacher Education v. Shri Shyam
Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan, which have
been extracted in the earlier part of this
judgment.
(iv) The recognition granted by the Regional
Committees under Section 14(3)(a) of the 1993
Act read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the
Regulations and permission granted under
Section 15(3)(a) read with the relevant
Regulations shall operate prospectively, i.e.,
from the date of communication of the order of
recognition or permission, as the case may be.”
13. Yet again, another two-Judge Bench in Maa Vaishno
Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh
& Ors.5
opined that Regulations framed under the Act
clearly show that upon receiving an application for
recommendation, the 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 are called for. The Court observed that this
is the stage where the State and its Department should play
a vital role and they must take all precautions to offer
5 (2013) 2 SCC 617
17
proper comments supported by due reasoning. Once these
comments are sent and the State Government gives its
opinion which is considered by the 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-a-vis the State Government as
well as the affiliating body. Normally, these questions
cannot be re-agitated at the time of grant of affiliation.
Proceeding further, it was held that 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 life of the
students in the school because of non-compliance of a
substantive condition imposed by either of the bodies but 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
18
acceptable.
14. As we find from the aforesaid authorities as well as the
Regulations framed by the NCTE, the State has a say, may
be a limited one. We are inclined to use the word 'limited'
because the State's say is not binding on the NCTE.
However, the NCTE is required to take the same into
consideration, for the State has a vital role to offer proper
comments supported by due reasoning. It needs no special
emphasis to say that final authority rests with the NCTE. It
is the clear legal position.
15. In course of hearing, we have been apprised that the
NCTE has granted recognition to some of the institutions.
As the recognition has already been granted, the
controversy with regard to the said institutions shall stand
closed. Needless to say, in future, whenever an application
is received under the Regulations for grant of recognition,
the NCTE shall be guided by its own Regulations and the
judgments of this Court and the State shall remain bound
by the principles set out hereinabove. Needless to say, the
NCTE shall take into consideration the recommendations
and views of the State despite the fact that it has the final
19
say.
16. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. There shall
be no order as to costs.
..............................J.
(Dipak Misra)
..............................J.
(C. Nagappan)
New Delhi;
September 08, 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment