Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1997 Supreme(Mad) 202

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.A. SWAMI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KANAKARAJ
Lords and Angels Teacher Training Institute, represented by its Correspondent Mrs. Vasanthi & Others
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government Education Department & Others
Writ Petition Nos. 1079 of 1996, 1253, 1254, 1830, 2165, 2166, 2167, 2859, 3087, 4417, 14213, 14901, 17851 & 17959 of 1996 & Writ Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 1702 of 1996, & 1703 of 1996, 1965, 2835, 3348, 3349, 3350, 3351, 3352, 3353, 4547, 4949, 7079, 19379, 20409, 24787 & 24981 of 1996
Decided On :Decided on : 11-02-1997

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:K.M. Venugopal, N. Muralikumar, A. Immanuel, Paulvasantha Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents: K.P.H. Thulasiraman Special Government Pleader, V.T. Gopalan, Senior Counsel for S. Udayakumar Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the Government of India.

Regulations requiring a no objection certificate from the State Government for recognition of educational institutions are not inconsistent with the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, and are reasonable and necessary for the upliftment of Teacher Education in the State.

Headnote:
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION ACT - REGULATIONS 5(E) AND 5(F) - VALIDITY - MINORITY INSTITUTIONS - RIGHT TO ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS - NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE FROM STATE GOVERNMENT - REASONABLENESS - ENDOWMENT FUND REQUIREMENT - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:

Writ petitions challenging the validity of Regulations 5(e) and 5(f) of the Regulations framed under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. Petitioners, educational institutions, sought recognition without reference to the Regulations, arguing that they were unconstitutional. The Regulations required institutions to obtain a no objection certificate from the State Government for recognition.
Finding of the Court:

1. Regulations 5(e) and 5(f) are not inconsistent with the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, as they provide guidelines for the State Government to exercise its power in granting or refusing a no objection certificate. 2. The requirement of a no objection certificate from the State Government is reasonable and necessary for the upliftment of Teacher Education in the State. 3. The requirement of a cash endowment of at least Rs. 5 lakhs is illegal and ultra vires the rights of the minority institution.
Issues: 1. Whether Regulations 5(e) and 5(f) of the Regulations are inconsistent with the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. 2. Whether the requirement of a no objection certificate from the State Government is reasonable and necessary. 3. Whether the requirement of a cash endowment of at least Rs. 5 lakhs is valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Regulations 5(e) and 5(f) of the Regulations are not inconsistent with the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, as they provide guidelines for the State Government to exercise its power in granting or refusing a no objection certificate. The Act empowers the National Council for Teacher Education to make Regulations, and the Regulations themselves provide detailed norms and standards for Teacher Education, leaving no chance for arbitrary action by the Regional Committees. 2. The requirement of a no objection certificate from the State Government is reasonable and necessary for the upliftment of Teacher Education in the State. The State Government is concerned with Education in General and Teacher Education in particular, and is responsible for ensuring law and order, safety, security, health, and hygiene. The requirement of a no objection certificate is not an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of a religious or linguistic minority. 3. The requirement of a cash endowment of at least Rs. 5 lakhs is illegal and ultra vires the rights of the minority institution. The Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Madras English Baptish Church Madras v. The State of Tamil Nadu (1991 Writ L.R. 419) held that such a requirement is violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: 1. Regulations 5(e) and 5(f) of the Regulations are upheld as valid. 2. The requirement of a cash endowment of at least Rs. 5 lakhs is held to be illegal and ultra vires the rights of the minority institution. 3. All writ petitions are dismissed, except for Writ Petition No. 2165 to 2167 of 1996, in which relief is granted to the extent of striking down the requirement of a cash endowment of at least Rs. 5 lakhs.

Judgment :-

KANAKARAJ, J.

1. All these writ petitions challenge the validity of Regulations 5(e) and 5(f) of the Regulations framed in exercise of the powers conferred under clauses (f) and (g) of Sub Section 2 of S. 32 read with Ss.

14 and 15 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (Act No. 73 of 1993 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act’). The said Regulations were framed by the National Council for Teacher Education. In some of the writ petitions, the prayer is to direct the Authorities to consider their applications for grant of recognition without reference to the Regulations 5(e) and 5(f) of the Regulations, meaning thereby that those Regulations are unconstitutional and as such cannot be given effect to. Thus, in substance, all the writ petitions relate to the validity of the said Regulations.

2. Though facts are not very material, all the same, no decision is complete, unless the facts leading to the necessity of the petitioners to challenge the Regulations are noticed and set out. In this view of the matter, we will refer to the facts in W.P. No. 1079 of 1996. That Writ Petition has been filed by an institution claiming to belong to the minority community. It was started on 1.4.1991. They sought for recognition as a Teacher Training Institute before the Joint Director (Secondary Education) and the same was rejected on 3-9-1991. In W.P. No. 14714 of 1991, this Court directed the first respondent to grant temporary recognition and to consider the request for permanent recognition within a period of six months. However, on inspection by the Authorities and after completing the requirements of G.O. Ms. No. 536, dated 17-5-1989, the second respondent by his proceedings, dated 28-8-1992 rejected the application for permanent recognition. An appeal against the said order was dismissed on 7-5-1993. The challenge to the said Government Order Ms. No. 536, dated 17-5-1989 also failed, when a Division Bench of this Court dismissed all such writ petitions. The petitioner filed another W.P. No. 14253 of 1995 to quash the order of the Director of Teacher Education, dated 28-9-1995, rejecting the application for grant of recognition under G.O. Ms. No. 803, dated 16-9-1994, modifying the earlier G.O. Ms. No. 536, dated 17-5-1989. In the meanwhile, the present Act came into force on 29-12-1993, under which every Institution offering a course of Training for Teacher Education and unrecognised on or after 17-8-1995, has to seek recognition in accordance with law by making an application to the respective Regional Committee of National Council for Teacher Education. In so far as the Institutions imparting Teacher Education under proper recognition granted on-or before 16.8.1995, are concerned, they are required to apply for fresh recognition within a period of six months from the date of establishment of the National Council. It is under those circumstances that the writ petitioner filed an application for recognition on 18-1-1996 with the Southern Regional Committee. While the application of the petitioner was pending with the Regional Committee, the third respondent had announced about the conduct of the examinations for the benefit of the students in certain Government and Government aided private schools. Though the prayer in that writ petition is to quash the said notice, proposing to conduct the examinations for other institutions, there is an alternative prayer, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the grant of recognition to the petitioner institution without waiting for a no objection certificate from the State Government as required under Regulations 5(e) of the Regulations.

3. In all the other writ petitions, the petitioners are not the institutions, which were legally recognized prior to 17-8-1995 and therefore, all of them are required by law to apply for a fresh recognition under the Act. Consequently, they are compelled to comply with Regulations 5(e) and 5(f) of the Regulations, seeking a no objectio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document