IMPORTANT POINT
B.Ed. Course – Need of new colleges looking to requirement can be said to be a relevant consideration and a decision not to recommend further recognition to new B.Ed. colleges on need basis cannot be said to be arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 144/2014, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the Special Appeal preferred by the State of Uttarakhand and others and has confirmed the judgment and order dated 04.04.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2464 of 2013, by which the learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 16.07.2013 of the State Government by which the State Government opined/decided not to grant recognition to the new B.Ed. Colleges and consequently directed the National Council for Teachers Education (for short ‘NCTE’) to take appropriate decision on the application of respondent No. 1 to increase the seats to B.Ed. course, the State of Uttarakhand has preferred the present appeal.

2. Respondent No. 1 herein-original writ petitioner-Nalanda College of Education, Dehradun (for short ‘College’) was granted recognition for B.Ed. course of one year duration with an annual intake of 100 students by the NCTE under Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act on 22.02.2008. After the recognition, the original writ petitioner was affiliated to the HNB University under the U.P. State University Act, 1973. For the academic session 2013-14, the College applied to the Northern Regional Committee of the NCTE to increase the intake seats of the students. The opinion of the State Government was sought as per NCTE Regulations, 2014. The State Government vide order/communication dated 16.07.2013 sent its opinion and informed the Northern Regional Committee of NCTE that about 13000 students are passing B.Ed. course per annum against the need of 2500 teachers and therefore most of the students passing B.Ed. course would be unemployed. Consequently, the State Government opined that no fresh recognition be granted undertaking B.Ed. course and also opined to cancel the recognition of respondent No. 1-original writ petitioner-College. The communication/order dated 16.07.2013 of the State Government was the subject matter of writ petition before the High Court.

2.1 The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside order/communication dated 16.07.2013 of the State Government by observing that the ground that the students after passing B.Ed. course are unemployed and the State Government is not in a position to grant employment to all of them and therefore institutions should be closed is nothing except the arbitrary exercise on the part of the State Government. The learned Single Judge also observed that on the contrary, instead of closing down the institutions, the State Government should promote institutions to come up in the State to provide education and a welfare State is not supposed to close down the institutions. The learned Single Judge directed the Northern Regional Committee to take appropriate decision on the application of the original writ petitioner to increase the seats of B.Ed. course. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge was the subject matter of special appeal before the Division Bench. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the special appeal and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the special appeal and confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is the subject matter of the present appeal.

3. Shri Krishnam Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State of Uttarakhand has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have seriously erred in quashing and setting aside the communication/order dated 16.07.2013 holding the same as arbitrary.

3.1 It is submitted that a