IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The practice of admitting students by unauthorised educational institutions and then seeking permission for permitting the students to appear at the examination would be in clear transgression of the provision of the Act and the regulations. The court cannot be a party to direct the students to disobey the statute as that would be destructive of the rule of law.
2. Courts cannot grant relief to a party on humanitarian grounds contrary to law.

Headnote:National Council of Teachers’ Education (for short ‘NCTE’) Act, 1993 - Section 17 -Appeals against order passed by High Court whereby order issued by Western Regional Committee under Section 17 of ‘NCTE’ Act, 1993 withdrawing recognition of B.Ed. College established by appellant was upheld-Institution established by appellant had been inspected more than once and several deficiencies that seriously affect its capacity to impart quality education and training to future teachers specifically pointed out-Inadequacy of space and staff, apart from other requirements stipulated under provisions of Act and Regulations, is something which disqualifies any institution from seeking recognition-Such deficiencies could not be disputed in the light of reports submitted by inspecting teams from time to time-Held difficult to appreciate how the institution could have reported compliance with requirements of regulations and complete removal of deficiencies after order passed by High Court when institution had neither the land standing in its name nor the building constructed in which it could conduct the training programme- The fact that institution was being run in a building which was shared by two other colleges was itself sufficient to justify withdrawal of recognition granted in its favour- Four lecturers employed by appellant did not even had requisite M.Ed. qualification- Since institution was lacking in essential infrastructural facilities ,it clearly justified withdrawal of recognition earlier granted to it-Appeals dismissed (Para 11)
        National Council of Teachers’ Education (for short ‘NCTE’) Act, 1993 - Section 17 - Appeals against order passed by High Court whereby order issued by Western Regional Committee under Section 17 of ‘NCTE’ Act, 1993 withdrawing recognition of B.Ed. College established by appellant was upheld-Plea of appellant that students admitted to college for the academic session 2011-2012 could be allowed to appear in the examination to avoid prejudice to them and to save their careers-The practice of admitting students by unauthorised educational institutions and then seeking permission for permitting the students to appear at the examination would be in clear transgression of the provision of the Act and the regulations- The court cannot be a party to direct students to disobey the statute as that would be destructive of the rule of law-Apex Court has in a long line of decisions rendered from time to time disapproved of students being allowed to continue in unrecognised institutions only on sympathetic considerations- The institution established by appellant was not equipped with the infrastructure required under NCTE Act and the Regulations-It was not in a position to impart quality education, no matter admissions for session 2011-2012 were made pursuant to interim directions issued by the High Court- Hence prayer for permitting the students to continue in the unrecognised institution of appellant or directing that they may be permitted to appear in the examination held liable to be rejected -Appeals dismissed (Paras 17, 18)
       Facts of the Case :
        Present Appeals have been filed against order passed by High Court whereby order issued by Western Regional Committee under Section 17 of ‘NCTE’ Act, 1993 withdrawing recognition of B.Ed. College established by appellant was upheld.
       Findings of the Court :
        A.Institution established by appellant had been inspected more than once and several deficiencies that seriously affect its capacity to impart quality education and training to future teachers specifically pointed out.Inadequacy of space and staff, apart from other requirements stipulated under provisions of Act and Regulations, is something which disqualifies any institution from seeking recognition. Such deficiencies could not be disputed in the light of reports submitted by inspecting teams from time to time.
        B. Held difficult to appreciate how the institution could have reported compliance with requirements of regulations and complete removal of deficiencies after the order passed by High Court when the institution had neither the land standing in its name nor the building constructed in which it could conduct the training programme. The fact that institution was being run in a building which was shared by two other colleges was itself sufficient to justify withdrawal of recognition granted in its favour. It was also noted by the inspecting team that four lecturers employed by appellant did not even had the requisite M.Ed. qualification. Suffice it to say that institution was lacking in essential infrastructural facilities which clearly justified withdrawal of recognition earlier granted to it. Appeals were dismissed
       Result : Appeals dismissed

JUDGMENT

T.S. Thakur, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of an order dated 7th October, 2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, whereby Special Civil Application No.9485 of 2011 has been dismissed and order dated 20th July, 2011 as modified by order dated 24th August, 2011 issued by the Western Regional Committee under Section 17 of the National Council of Teachers’ Education (for short ‘NCTE’) Act, 1993 withdrawing the recognition of the B.Ed. College established by the appellant upheld.

3. The appellant-Trust has established a college under the name and style Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed. College, Rajkot. The college had the benefit of recognition granted in its favour in terms of an order dated 29th May, 2007 under Section 14 (3)(a) of the NCTE Act for offering a B.Ed. with an annual intake of 100 students. Shortly after the grant of the said recognition, the NCTE issued a notice dated 27th July, 2008 to the appellant to show cause why the recognition should not be withdrawn in terms of Section 17 of the Act in view of the deficiencies pointed out in the notice like inadequacy of built-up area available to the institution, the land underlying the structure not being in the name of the appellant-Trust and the college being run in a building that is used by two other institutions.

4. The recognition was finally withdrawn by the NCTE on 29th November, 2008 primarily because the appellant had failed to respond to the show cause notice within the period stipulated for the purpose. The withdrawal order was, however, successfully challenged before the High Court by the appellant with the High Court issuing certain directions including a direction to the appellant-college to remove the defects pointed out by the NCTE and to offer the institution for a fresh inspection by the NCTE. The High Court also directed that while admissions for the current year shall not be affected by the withdrawal of recognition, in the event of non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations, the institution shall not be permitted to admit any student for the next year. The NCTE was given liberty to have a fresh inspection conducted and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after issuing a notice to the institution.

5. In compliance with the directions of the High Court, the appellant by its letter dated 20th December, 2010 intimated to the NCTE that the deficiencies in question had been removed and invited the NCTE to depute a team for a fresh inspection of the college. An inspection was accordingly conducted that culminated in the issue of a fresh notice to the appellant again pointing out several deficiencies in the institution including inadequacy of space, staff and the fact that the college had no land in its own name and that the institution was being run in a building which was being used by two other colleges. The appellant appears to have sent a reply to the said show-cause notice but before a final decision could be taken on the same, the appellant filed Special Civil Appeal No.6507 of 2011 before the High Court for a mandamus to the University to allot students to the appellant-college. By an order dated 14th June, 2011, the High Court directed the University to allot the students to the appellant-college for the academic session 2011-2012. In the meantime, the Western Regional Committee issued an order on 20th July, 2011 withdrawing the recognition granted to the appellant-college in exercise of its powers under Section 17 of NCTE Act. The order contained as many as nine different grounds for the said withdrawal. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Special Civil Application No.9485 of 2011 before the High Court, inter alia, contending that the withdrawal of recognition was on grounds that went beyond the show-cause notice issued to the institution. It was also contended that pursuant to the directions of the High Court the University had allotted 60 students to the college

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 1155

Cases Referred (4)