Back
Upholds NCTE's Power to Seek Annual Performance Appraisal Reports From TEIs
Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe rules that statutory regulators possess both to enforce , reversing a order.
The on Thursday delivered a landmark judgment affirming the regulatory authority of the to require all recognised to submit annual Performance Appraisal Reports (PAR). The bench set aside a Division Bench ruling of the that had quashed a September 2019 Public Notice mandating the PAR.
The Dispute Over a Public Notice
The controversy began when the Member Secretary of the issued a Public Notice on , directing all TEIs running NCTE-recognised courses to upload an annual PAR along with chartered accountant-audited financial statements on a designated online portal. The notice prescribed a processing fee of ₹5,000 for government institutions and ₹15,000 for private institutions, and warned that non-compliance would invite action under .
The and other bodies challenged the notice before the . While a Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, the Division Bench allowed the appeal, holding that there was no material showing the PAR proforma had been evolved or approved by the full Council. The High Court also noted that the function of evolving a performance appraisal system under Section 12(k) could not be delegated to the Member Secretary.
Arguments: TEIs vs. NCTE
The TEIs contended that only the Council itself, and not its Executive Committee or Member Secretary, had the statutory authority to issue such a mandate. They argued that the Council's decision in its 48th General Body Meeting merely authorised the NCTE to proceed with a proforma to be developed, and there was no evidence that the proforma was ever placed before and approved by the Council.
The NCTE, represented by
, countered that the Council had deliberately replaced the earlier proposal of "annual renewal of recognition" with the PAR system to avoid litigation. The Executive Committee, as the executive arm of the Council, was fully empowered to implement the decision. The power to call for PAR was traceable to
, which enables the Council to
"evolve suitable performance appraisal systems, norms and mechanisms for enforcing
on recognised institutions."
Legal Analysis: Incidental Powers and
The disagreed with the High Court's "" approach. The bench observed that when a High Court examines the exercise of power by a , the approach must be to see whether the functioning violates any mandatory provision or transgresses vested power.
The court found ample empowerment for the PAR requirement. It noted that the Council, in its 48th meeting, had approved the PAR system and authorised its implementation. The Executive Committee was merely carrying forward that mandate when it issued the notice. Even without specific statutory language, the court held, a can be to the regulator's duties.
The judgment emphasised that is an essential principle of administrative law, resting on responsibility, answerability, and enforceability. Since the conducts performance audits of the NCTE itself, it is natural for the Council to seek appraisal reports from the institutions it governs.
In a notable development, the court expanded the recognised "" responsible for free and compulsory elementary education under and the from five to seven. Drawing from its earlier decision in
, the court added Teacher Education Institutions as the sixth duty bearer and the NCTE as the seventh. The court declared that the duties of the Council and its committees
"are perhaps the highest of all the
."
Key Observations
"We fail to understand as to how aof a statutory body, empowered to achieve planned and coordinated development of teacher education system in the country could be restrained from calling upon the TEIs to file Performance Appraisal Report."
"We are of the opinion that even without a specific empowerment under the statute, such acan always beto the duties and functions of a regulator."
"Apart from the duty to ensure that the executive authority/statutory bodies do not exercise powers that are not vested in them, Constitutional courts also have a positive duty to ensure that Authorities, more particularly, the regulators do exercise their powers effectively, efficiently and in an accountable manner."
Decision and Implications
The allowed the appeal, set aside the 's judgment, and held that the Public Notice was "legal and valid." The court clarified that the NCTE and its Executive Committee are within their jurisdiction to require TEIs to upload PARs.
The ruling has significant implications for India's approximately 16,000 recognised teacher education institutions. The PAR mechanism will serve as a key tool for the NCTE to monitor standards, enforce
, and take action against non-compliant institutions. In
alone, the NCTE had derecognised over 2,500 TEIs for failing to meet norms. NCTE Chairman Pankaj Arora welcomed the verdict, calling it "a landmark victory" that strengthens the regulator's resolve to
"clean up substandard teacher education institutions."
The judgment also reinforces the constitutional linkage between teacher quality and the fundamental right to education under , underscoring the critical role of teacher education in nation-building.
