Back
2011 (7) Supreme 282
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik and Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, JJ
Swami Vivekanand College of Education & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5961 of 2010
Decided on : 12-10-2011
(b) National Council for Teacher Education Recognition Norms and Procedure, Regulations, 2007 and Regulations 2009 ¯ Regulations 8(4) ¯ Held, under Regulation 8(4) the ‘Council’ having prescribed a ‘condition’ for recognition that an institution accredited by NAAC with a Letter Grade B is entitled to apply for enhancement of intake in Secondary Teacher Education Programme-B.Ed. & B.P.Ed., can not be held to be sub-delegation of power. (Para 34)
(c) National Council for Teacher Education Recognition Norms and Procedure, Regulations 2007 and Regulations 2009 ¯ Regulations 8(5) ¯ Held, Regulation (5) is not retrospective. (Para 39).
(d) Delegated legislation ¯ A delegate of the legislature is conferred with the power to make rules and regulations to carry out the purposes of the legislation and such rules and regulations are called delegated legislation or subordinate legislation ¯ If the Regulation framed is in broad conformity with the objects and policy of the Act and is not in conflict with any statutory or constitutional provisions, the regulation made by the delegate, will have to be held to be valid. (Paras 26 and 30)
(e) Words and Phrases ¯ Retrospective. (Para 35)
Facts of the Case
Appellants-institutions, which are recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education, impart teacher training course (B.Ed.). On their request the ‘National Council for Technical Education (Council) permitted additional intake of students for such course without seeking accreditation and Letter Grade B from National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC). Subsequently, the ‘Council’ framed “National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 by notification dated 10th December, 2007 introducing Regulation 8(4) and 8(5). As per Regulation 8(4) an institution is required to be accredited with the NAAC with a Letter Grade B, whereas as per Regulation 8(5) those institutions which had been granted additional intake in B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. teacher training courses after promulgation of the Regulations, 2005 i.e. 13th January, 2006 are required to get themselves accredited with the NAAC with a Letter Grade B before Ist April, 2010. Appellants unsuccessfully challenged the validity of both Regulations 8(4) and 8(5), before High Court, hence this appeal.
Findings
(1) Held, Section 12 (k) and Section 15 and Section 32(2)(h) of the NCTE Act, 1993 make it clear that the NCTE is empowered to frame Regulation laying down other “conditions” for conduct of a new course/training under Section 15(3), cl (a) ¯ Regulation 8(4) prescribing a condition for recognition that an institution accredited by NAAC with a letter Grade B is entitled to apply for intake in B.Ed. & B.P. Ed. is not sub-delegation of power.
(2) As per Regulation 8(3) of Regulations 2005 in vogue since 13.1.2006, only after three academic sessions in an institution, an institution was entitled to apply for enhancement of intake of students of in the course. Under Rule 8 (4) only such institution which had accredited itself with the NAAC with letter Grade B was entitled to apply for enhancement of intake of students in Secondary Teacher Education Programme B.Ed and B.P. Ed. In Regulation 2007 when enacted Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) were retained and Regulation 8(5) clarified that institution granted additional intake in B.Ed. and B.P. Ed. training courses after enhancement of Regulation 2005, i.e. 13th January 2006 shall be required to be accredited with NAAC with a Letter Grade B. It was open to NCTE to remind such institutions to follow Regulations 8(3) and 8(4), as such Regulation 8(5) cannot be held to be retrospective. (Paras 38, 39 and 40)
JUDGMENT
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J. —
1. Appellants-institutions, which are recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Council’), impart teacher training course (B.Ed.). On their request the ‘Council’ permitted additional intake of students for such course without seeking accreditation and Letter Grade B from National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC). Subsequently, the ‘Council’ framed “National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations, 2007) by notification dated 10th December, 2007 introducing Regulation 8(4) and 8(5) which the appellants unsuccessfully challenged before the High Court.
2. As per Regulation 8(4) an institution is required to be accredited with the NAAC with a Letter Grade B, whereas as per Regulation 8(5) those institutions which had been granted additional intake in B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. teacher training courses after promulgation of the Regulations, 2005 i.e. 13 th January, 2006 are required to get themselves accredited with the NAAC with a Letter Grade B before Ist April, 2010.
3. The validity of Regulation 8(4) and 8(5) was challenged by the appellants on the following grounds:
(i) Their right to establish and run their institutions enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India stands curtailed;
(ii) they will suffer constitutional injury on account of the ‘Council’ outsourcing its statutory functions in the absence of statutory authorisation for sub-delegation of the delegated power;
(iii) by giving a retrospective effect to the Regulations and
(iv) due to non-performance of statutory duties by the ‘Council’.
4. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that the Regulation 8(4) merely puts a ‘condition’ for making an application that the applicant should have itself accredited with the NAAC with a Letter Grade B; the Court further held that the Regulation 8(5) is prospective in nature, being a ‘condition’ imposed in continuation of additional intake.
5. During the pendency of the present appeal the ‘Council’ framed the “National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norm and Procedure) Regulations, 2009 w.e.f. 31st August, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “NCTE Regulations, 2009”) but as Regulation 8(4) and 8(5) is identically worded so far as B.Ed. course, this Court by order dated 15th March, 2010 permitted the appellants to challenge the validity of new Regulation 8(4) and 8(5) of Regulations, 2009.
STAND OF THE APPELLANTS
6. Learned counsel for the appellants while contending that there was no requirement for any approved institutions to get them accredited with NAAC for enhancement of intake of seats in the course, the following submissions were made:
(i) The ‘Council’ cannot sub-delegate its functions and duties conferred upon it by the parent Act i.e. NCTE Act, 1993 to an outside institution namely NAAC in absence of express authorisation by the parent Act. Therefore, Regulation 8(4) ultra vires the NCTE Act, 1993 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India being against the principle “delegates non potest delegare”.
(ii) The NCTE Act, 1993 does not authorise the ‘Council’ to frame Regulations retrospectively; in absence of such power the delegatee the ‘Council’ cannot make subordinate legislation retrospectively. The requirement, therefore, contemplated under Regulation 8(5) being ex- facie retrospective, taking away the right of the appellants to continue with the additional seats of B.Ed. course, is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
(iii) Regulation 8(5) and paragraph 6 of notice dated Ist October, 2008 issued by the ‘Council’ asking all institutions which were already granted additional intake in B.Ed./B.P.Ed. courses after Ist January, 2006 to get themselves accredited with NAAC with Grade B certificate ultra vires the NCTE Act, 1993 disturbing and altering the vested and accrued fundamental rights of the ins
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
