2006 Supreme(SC) 211

2006(2) Supreme 703
Supreme Court of India
(From Uttaranchal High Court)
S.B. Sinha and P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
National Council for Teacher Education & Anr. —Appellants
versus
Committee of Management & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1546 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24432 of 2005)
Decided on 7-3-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate, V.K. Rao, Saurabh Suman Sinha, Usman Ali Khan and Ms. Madhu Sikri, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Uday U. Lalit, Sr. Advocate, H.S. Parihar and Kuldeep Parihar, Advocates.

Headnote:National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993—Section 32 rw/s 14—NCTE (Form of Application for recognition, the time limit of submission of application, determination of norms and standards for recognition of teacher eduction programmes and permission to start new course of training) Regulations, 2002—Appendix I-B, I-C—Grant of recognition for B.Ed. course—Essential documents required to be annexed—First respondent had applied for grant of ‘No Objection Certificate’ before the State of Uttaranchal —NOC was granted on or about 23-12-2004—An application thereafter was made by first respondent for grant of recognition for B.Ed. course in respect of academic year 2005-2006—Appellant Council by its letter dated 27-4-2005 pointed out to respondent institution that some essential documents had not been annexed—Respondent by its letter dated 9.6.2005 submitted the essential documents—However, despite receipt of the said letter, appellant refused to accord recognition to respondent institution for the academic year 2005-2006—Writ petition—It is stated before the Supreme Court that the Council carried forward application of the Institution for consideration of the subsequent academic year—An inspection has already been carried out—High Court was not justified in holding that Regulations did not postulate any time limit for filing an application for grant of recognition.

       Held : Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 32 specifically refers to Section 14 of the Act for the purpose of laying down the form and manner in which the applications for recognition are required to be submitted. The High Court was, therefore, entirely wrong in arriving at the conclusion that the Council had no such power. The Regulations, having been validly framed, indisputably, were required to be complied with. The Council has a statutory duty to perform. It is an autonomous body. Its jurisdiction extend to the entire territory of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and in that view of the matter, it is indisputably required to process a large number of applications received by it from various institutions situate throughout the country. Six month’s time, in view of the statutory scheme, is necessary for processing the papers, inspection of the institution and to take a decision on the basis of report submitted pursuant thereto as to whether the institution in question, having regard to Entry 66 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, has the requisite infrustructural facilities for imparting education to the teachers. For the afore-mentioned purpose, it is not necessary for us to determine the question as to whether the provisions of the Regulations are imperative in character or not. There cannot, however, be any doubt or dispute that even if they are directory in nature, substantial compliance thereof was necessary. It is no ground that such an application could not be filed by the first respondent before 31st December, 2004 as it received the NOC issued by the State Government. In view of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations, it was obligatory on the part of the first respondent to file an application, which was complete in all respects. It does not lie in the mouth of the applicant to state that despite requirements of law it would not comply with the same. It is not a case where the requirements were not capable of being complied with. The first respondent was required to show that it has a legal and valid title in respect of the land on which the building in question was required to be constructed. It was also required to furnish the copy of the building plan approved by the competent authority. We have noticed hereinbefore that the application form itself provides for as to what infrustructural facilities are necessary for running the institution. The infrustructural facilities required to be provided must be commensurate with the requirements stated in the said form itself. One of them is to state the number of different rooms and their respective sizes thereof available in the proposed institution. So far as the title over the land in question is concerned, it was stated by the respondent that the land is available in the name of institution on a long-term basis. It is not disputed that copy of the registered Deed of Lease was furnished for the first time by the first respondent on 9.6.2005. Similarly, complete information as to whether the building plan had been sanctioned or not was furnished only on the said date. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. (Paras 16 & 17)

       Before parting with this case, we may place on record that it is categorically stated before us by Mr. Raju Ramachandran that the Council carried forward the application of the Institution for consideration of the subsequent academic year. An inspection has already been carried out and the eligibility of the first respondent to obtain such recognition shall be determined within a period of eight weeks from date. We place on record the afore-mentioned submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. (Para 21)