2006 Supreme(SC) 298

2006(4) Supreme 548
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI., C.K. Thakkar & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
State of Maharashtra—Petitioner
versus
Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors.—Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1859 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 20969-20977 of 2005)
With
Civil Appeal No. 1860 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20918 of 2005)
Decided on 31-3-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : T.R. Andhyarujina, Raju Ramachandran, Jaideep Gupta, Mukul Rohtagi, R. Venkataramani, Sr. Advocates, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Ms. Aprajita Singh, T. Mahipal, Anantbhushan Kanade, Dharam Bir Raj Vohra, V.K. Rao, Ms. Madhu Sikri, Sanjay Sen, Rana S. Biswas, M.P.S. Chauhan, Nitin Lalwani, Vishal Anand, Ms. Diya D. Disuza, Ms. Sarla Chandra Shivaji M. Jadhav, Himanshu Gupta, Brij Kishor Sah, Manish Pitale, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Jayashree Wad, Ashish Wad, Neeraj Kumar, Arvind Gupta for M/s. J.S. Wad & Co., Sushil Karanjakar, K.N. Rai, Vinay Navare, Naresh Kumar, M.D. Adkar, Vijay Kumar, Vishwajit Singh, Nitin S. Tambwekar, B.S. Sai, K. Rajeev, S.U.K. Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Ms. Pooja N. Gupta for M/s. Lawyers’ Knit & Co., C.K. Thomas, Ms. Asha G. Nair, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Under the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, final decision for grant of permission to start B.Ed college, can be taken only by the National Council for Teacher Education and the State Government could not have passed the impugned order refusing permission on the ground of ‘policy’ of not allowing new B.Ed college to be opened.

Headnote:National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993—Sections 2, 14, 16, 17, 18, 31, 32—Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994—Sections 82, 83—National Council for Teacher Education Norms and Conditions for Recognition of Bachelor of Elementary Education) Regulations, 1995—Regulations 5, 8—Opening of a new B.Ed. College—State of Maharashtra had taken a policy decision not to grant ‘No Objection Certificate’ to any institution for starting new B.Ed. college for academic year 2005-06—However, National Council for Teacher Education granted permission to the petitioner institute—State contending that decision of NCTE ignoring the policy decision of the State Government was not in consonance with law—State authorities asserting that the petitioner had to obtain NOC from the State Government—According to the High Court, the only authority which could take a decision regarding opening of new B.Ed college or increase in intake capacity was NCTE and such decision cannot be ignored either by the State authorities or by the University—Whether it is open to the State Government to refuse permission relying on a State Act or on ‘policy consideration’—(No)—Final authority lies with NCTE—Absence or non production of NOC by the institution was immaterial and irrelevant so far as power of NCTE is concerned—Constitution of India—Article 246, Entry 66, List I.

       Held : So far as co-ordination 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 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 State Legislatures and appropriate Act can be by the State Legislature subject to limitations and restrictions under the Constitution.(Para 59)

       In the instant case, admittedly, Parliament has enacted 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 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, 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’.(Para 60)

       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.(Para 65)

       The Central Government has considered the subject of Secondary Education and Higher Education at the national level. The Act of 1993 also requires Parliaments to consider Teacher Education System ‘throughout the country’. NCTE, therefore, in our opinion, is expected to deal with applications for establishing new B.Ed. colleges or allowing increase in intake capacity, keeping in view 1993 Act and planned and co-ordinated 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, State Government has no power 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.(Para 69)

       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 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.(Para 71)

       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.(Para 75)

       We may, however, state that the academic year 2005-06 is almost over and as such it is not possible to grant the prayer of respondent-colleges to allow them to admit students for the year 2005-06. It is, therefore, directed that the order passed by NCTE would operate from the next academic year, i.e. from the year 2006-07.(Para 77)