Late Surendra Pratap Shiksha Samiti vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Headnote:(A) National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - Sections 14, 15, 16, and 17 - University Statute - Grant of affiliation - Rejection based on criminal proceedings and unsatisfactory inspection - Recognition by a central regulatory body is subject to the fulfillment of conditions prescribed by the affiliating university - The examining body is free to demand rigorous compliance with its own statutes, guidelines, and norms while granting affiliation (Paras 11, 14, 15).

(B) Forgery and Fraud - Use of suspected forged letters from a regulatory body and registration of criminal cases involving fraud and forgery are valid grounds for withholding or rejecting affiliation of educational institutions (Paras 9, 12, 13).

(C) Student Rights - Students admitted to unrecognised or unaffiliated institutions are not entitled to continue their courses or appear in examinations but are entitled to a refund of their fees (Paras 17, 19, 21).

Facts of the case:
Several educational institutions challenged an order putting their affiliation for a teacher training course on hold for an academic session. The affiliation was withheld by the respondent university due to unsatisfactory physical inspection reports regarding infrastructure and facilities, the registration of criminal cases for fraud and forgery by a specialized task force, and the submission of a suspected forged letter purportedly from the central regulatory body.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the recognition granted by the central regulatory body was conditional upon fulfilling the requirements of the affiliating university. Since the physical inspection was unsatisfactory and the institutions were involved in criminal investigations for forgery and fraud, including trying to deceive the university with forged documents, the university's decision to deny affiliation was justified.

Issues: Whether the affiliation of educational institutions can be withheld or rejected on the grounds of registered criminal cases and unsatisfactory physical inspection, despite having recognition from a central regulatory body.

Ratio Decidendi: Recognition by a central regulatory body does not automatically entitle an institution to affiliation; the affiliating university may independently verify and demand compliance with its own norms and infrastructure requirements. Furthermore, involvement in criminal activities such as fraud and forgery, especially involving the fabrication of regulatory documents, renders an institution unfit for affiliation.

Result: All the writ petitions are dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Affiliation withheld by university due to criminal case and suspicious letter – Challenge under Article 226. (Para 2 , 3 )

2. Petitioners argued affiliation cannot be withheld after NCTE recognition; university contended inspection and criminal case justified withholding. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )

3. Writ petitions dismissed; affiliation denial upheld; costs imposed; students entitled to refund. (Para 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )

4. Can a university withhold affiliation based on registration of criminal case against the institution?

Yes, particularly when the criminal case indicates serious irregularities and is considered alongside other deficiencies and suspicious communications. (Para 9 , 12 , 13 )

5. Is a university bound to grant affiliation solely because NCTE recognition exists?

No, NCTE recognition is subject to fulfillment of conditions prescribed by the affiliating body, and the university can deny affiliation for non-compliance. (Para 10 , 11 , 14 , 15 )

6. Can a university treat a letter from NCTE as suspicious and act accordingly?

Yes, if the letter contains multiple discrepancies indicating forgery, the university may deny affiliation pending clarification from NCTE. (Para 12 , 13 )

7. What relief are students admitted to an unaffiliated institution entitled to?

Students are entitled to refund of fees but not continuation of course or permission to appear in examinations. (Para 19 , 21 )

8. What is the duty of NCTE regarding institutions that contravene conditions of recognition?

NCTE should take appropriate action under Section 17 of the NCTE Act for withdrawal of recognition if conditions are not fulfilled. (Para 18 )

ORDER :

Anand Pathak, J.

Regard being had to the similitude of the issue involved, all the petitions were heard analogously and decided by this common order. For convenience's sake, facts of Writ Petition No.26738/2025 are taken into consideration.

2. The present petition (Writ Petition No.26738/2025) under Article 226 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:

(i) That, the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) and proceedings dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P/2) and 09.05.2025 (Annexure P/3) be directed to be quashed.

(ii) That, respondent University be directed to recommend for inclusion of name of petitioner institutes for participation in the ongoing counseling for B.Ed. course for the academic session 2025-26 on their sanctioned seats/intake in accordance with their order of recognition granted by the NCTE. Accordingly, the State Government may be directed to permit the petitioner institute to participate in the ongoing counseling and to grant the admission in accordance with law.

(iii) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that vide impugned order dt.02.07.2025, the affiliation of the petitioners institution of B.Ed. Course for the academic session 2025-26 has been put on hold on the basis of registration of criminal case so also recommendation of the Standing Committee dt.05.05.2025.

4. It is the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioners that recognition has already been granted to the petitioners' institution by NCTE for running B.Ed. course vide recognition order dt.31.01.2017. Thereafter, petitioner institution also applied for affiliation from respondent University, which has been continued upto session 2024-25. For the academic session 2025-26, petitioners' institutions applied for affiliation before the respondent University on which a team for inspection of the institutions was constituted. Inspection report of the committee was submitted before the University which was kept in the meeting dt.05.05.2025, on which date affiliation of the petitioners' institution was kept on hold for want of clarification with respect to recognition from the NCTE, Higher Education and STF. It is further submitted that merely on the basis of registration of criminal case by the STF against the petitioners college(s), their affiliation is kept on hold/rejected.

5. Learned counsel further submits that once the recognition has been granted by the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the NCTE Act) by exercising powers under Section 14 of the NCTE Act, the respondents can not withhold/reject the affiliation. It is also submitted that the action of the respondents to withhold the affiliation of the petitioners' institutions on the ground of registration of criminal case is untenable because such ground is not related to eligibility of students or admission procedure. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Rungta Engineering College, Bhilai and another v. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University and another (2015) 11 SCC 291 and Nawab Shah Alam Khan College of Engineering v. Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University and others , (2019) 16 SCC 391.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent University submits that Statute 27 Clause 10 lays down the mandatory procedure for inspection of colleges for the purpose of grant or continuation of affiliation. Affiliation can be granted only after inspection by a duly constituted committee and on the basis of its recommendation. Committee was constituted which submitted its report and the same was not satisfactory. It is further submitted that respondents received letter dt.08.05.2025 from NCTE, the contents of which were suspicious, therefore, asking its genuineness a letter was sent to NCTE on 31.5.2025 but no respo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 615

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can a university withhold affiliation based on registration of criminal case against the institution?

5. Is a university bound to grant affiliation solely because NCTE recognition exists?

6. Can a university treat a letter from NCTE as suspicious and act accordingly?

7. What relief are students admitted to an unaffiliated institution entitled to?

8. What is the duty of NCTE regarding institutions that contravene conditions of recognition?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 615

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can a university withhold affiliation based on registration of criminal case against the institution?

5. Is a university bound to grant affiliation solely because NCTE recognition exists?

6. Can a university treat a letter from NCTE as suspicious and act accordingly?

7. What relief are students admitted to an unaffiliated institution entitled to?

8. What is the duty of NCTE regarding institutions that contravene conditions of recognition?

Cases Referred (6)

Judicial Analysis