2002 Supreme(Raj) 1117

Supreme Court
Honble G.B. PATTANAIK & MRS. RUMA PAL, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers College - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.7404 of 2000
Decided On : October 23, 2002

Headnote:National Council of Teachers Education Act, 1993, Sec. 17(4) and Constitution of India, Art. 309 – Law dealing with the service conditions of an employee under the State Government – Prescribing qualifications for entry into the service of teaching under the State Government – B.Ed. vs. B.Ed. (Vacation Course – Held – Sec.17(4) of the Act of 1993 is a valid legislation under entry 66 of List I and its ambit could not be curtailed by referring it to Art.309 of the Constitution. (Paras 5 to 11 )

       The High Court committed gross error in construing the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act to mean that it is a legislation dealing with recruitment and conditions of services of persons in the State service within the meaning of Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The High Court committed the aforesaid error by examining the provisions of sub-section (4) on its plain terms without trying to examine the true character of the enactment which has to be done by examining the enactment as a whole, its object and scope and effect of the provisions. Even, the High Court does not appear to have applied the doctrine of ``pith and substance and, thus, committed the error in interpreting the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 17 to mean to be a provision dealing with conditions of service of an employee under the State Government. (Para 9)

       The conclusion of the High Court that Section 17(4) is ultra-vires being beyond the competence of the Union legislature cannot be sustained and the said conclusion is accordingly set aside. On examining the statute as a whole and on scrutiny of the object and scope of the statute, we have no manner of doubt that even sub-section (4) of Section 17 is very much a law dealing with the coordination and determination of standards in institution for higher education coming within Entry 66 of the List III of the Seventh Schedule and, thus, the Union legislature did have the competence for enacting the said provision. (Para 10)

       We are also of the further opinion that the de-recognition of the B.Ed. (Vacation course) cannot be nullified on the ground of failure to comply with the principle of natural justice. In the judgment under challenge. the High Court has held also that when the institution is imparting the B.Ed. (Vacation Course) then National Council for Teacher Education could not have refused to recognise the said course. We are unable to accept this reasoning inasmuch as the NCTE is an expert body created under the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and the Parliament has imposed upon such expert body the duty to maintain the standards of education, particularly, in relation to the teachers education. Education is the backbone of every democracy and any deterioration in the Standard of teaching An the B.Ed. course would ultimately produce sub-standard prospective teachers who would be teaching in schools and colleges throughout the country and on whose efficiency the future of the country depends. Inasmuch as the teacher himself has received a substandard education it is difficult to expect from him a higher standard of teaching to the students of the schools or other institutions. It is from this perspective, the conclusion of an expert body should not be lightly tinkered with by court of law without giving due weightage to the conclusion arrived at by such expert body. From this standpoint, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court committed error in holding that there was no reasonable justification for not recognising the B.Ed. (Vacation Course) which was being imparted by the institution of Shah Goverdhan Lal Kabra Teachers College. In the aforesaid premises, we set aside the impugned Judgment of the High Court and allow this appeal. (Para 11)