SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Not mentioned, J
Experimental College of Education v. Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University and Others
Special Civil Application No.14532 of 2016 | Special Civil Application Nos.14728, 14730, 14732, 14734, 14737, 14745, 14747, 14791 of 2016 | Special Civil Application Nos.14727, 14729, 14731, 14735, 14742, 14743, 14744, 14746, 14748, 14749, 14780, 14798, 14799, 14800, 14801, 14870, 14871 of 2016



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Shalin Mehta, Mr.Harsh K. Thakkar, Mr.Percy Kavina, Mr.Dipak B. Patel, Ms.Bhoomi Thakore, Mr.Valmik M. Vyas, Mr.Mohit P. Pathak, Mr.Dhaval M. Patel
For the Respondents: Mr.Siddharth H. Dave, Mr.P.C. Champaneri, Mr.Bhargav Pandya

The National Council for Teacher Education has the final authority in determining the intake capacity for B.Ed. courses, superseding any university restrictions, ensuring compliance with established norms.

Headnote:(A) National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - Sections 14, 16, and 17 - University restricting admissions - Respondent University unilaterally limited B.Ed. intake to 50 seats, despite NCTE's approval for 100 - Court ruled that university's restriction is impermissible as NCTE's decision prevails regarding intake capacity. (Paras 7, 10)

(B) Legal authority - The court clarified that the National Council for Teacher Education is the authoritative body in determining recognition and intake capacity for educational institutions, superseding any state or university regulations. (Paras 7, 7.1)

(C) Compliance - Institutions must meet NCTE's norms for infrastructure and teaching staff to maintain recognition. (Paras 8, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were educational institutions authorized by NCTE to admit 100 students in B.Ed. courses, challenged the university's restriction to 50 seats claiming it violated their rights. Respondent's refusal was based on incomplete compliance with infrastructure norms.

Findings of Court:
The university's limitation on the intake was rejected; institutions allowed to admit 100 students as per NCTE's recognition.

Issues: The main issues involved whether the university had the authority to restrict admissions contrary to NCTE's sanctioned approval and the compliance status of institutions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the supremacy of NCTE's decisions over university regulations, indicating that compliance with NCTE's standards is mandatory for institutions to maintain their license to operate.

Result: All petitions are allowed, and universities must comply with NCTE mandates.

1. The central theme of the controversy and the question posed for consideration in the present batch of petitions is whether it is permissible for the respondent University to restrict the admission to B.Ed. course in the petitioner institutions to the limited seats, when the National Council for Teacher Education has approved the intake capacity for 100 students; whether the University was competent to put up instruction while notifying the admission programme asking the petitioner not to fill up the seats beyond 50, and thereby vetoing the intake approved by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).

2. In all the petitions the respective petitioner institution is allowed the intake capacity of 100 students in the B.Ed. course by the NCTE for the Academic Year 2016-17, which is sought to be restricted by respondent No.1 - Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University to 50 seats. The annual intake of 100 students is allowed by the NCTE divided into two basic units of 50 seats each. The petitioners pray to declare as illegal the action on part of the University in not allowing the intake of 100 students to the B.Ed. course for Academic Year 2016-17. The petitioners have prayed for a direction against the University to allocate students in the second unit as per the total intake allowed by the NCTE.

2.1 On 09th September, 2016 the following order was passed while reserving the judgment in the petitions.

'Heard learned senior counsel Mr.Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Mr.Harsh K. Thakkar, learned senior advocate Mr.Percy Kavina with learned advocate Mr.Dipak B. Patel, learned advocate Ms.Bhoomi Thakore, learned advocate Mr.Valmik M. Vyas, learned advocate Mr.Mohit P. Pathak and learned advocate Mr.Dhaval M. Patel for the petitioners in respective petitions, learned advocate Mr.Siddharth H. Dave for the respondent - Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University in all the petitions, learned advocate Mr.P.C. Champaneri for NCTE in all the petition and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Bhargav Pandya for the State in all the petitions, in extenso.

2. It was stated by learned advocates appearing for the parties that pleadings are completed and they do not want to file any further pleadings. Documents tendered by learned advocate Mr.Champaneri for the Council in support of his averments are taken on record and shall be part of the record.

3. All the learned advocates at the end of the hearing submitted that petitions may be treated as finally heard since it was heard extensively.

4. In view of the aforesaid position and the request, reserved for judgment.

5. It was stated that admissions are to close on 10th September, 2016. It is observed that the admissions shall be abide by the final order which may be passed in the petitions.'

3. The facts in each of the captioned petitions run parallel. Taking the facts representatively from Special Civil Application No.14532 of 2016, the petitioner therein - the Experiment College of Education, Prantij offers the courses in B.Ed. and M.Ed. The said petitioner is stated to be the first college in the District of Sabarkantha imparting B.Ed. education, and claims to be one of the first top 10 colleges in the State. The respondent NCTE by its order dated 12th October, 2001 granted recognition to the petitioner for conducting B.Ed. course with annual intake of 100 students. The petitioner is affiliated to the respondent No.1 University and with such recognition from NCTE and the affiliation by the University, impart the B.Ed. education.

3.1 The aforementioned order dated 12th October, 2001 is on record of the petition to suggest that the same was an order granting recognition by exercise of powers vested in NCTE under S.14(3)(a) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 ('NCTE Act' for sake of brevity). The recognition as originally granted was from the Academic Session 2001-02 with an annual intake of 60 students as permitted at the relevant time, subject to fulfilling the conditi



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top