# C/M Dr. R.P. Memorial Degree College & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 560
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-20
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 29553 of 2018
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-dr-r-p-memorial-degree-college-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49086
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993
- Sections 14 & 15 - National Council for
Teacher Education (Recognition Norms
and Procedure) Regulations 2014 - Reg.
8(4) - Recognition for D.El.Ed. course -
Minimum
requirement
of
land
-
Prescription of lease from Government -
Permissibility - Rational nexus of the
prescription with the object of Act, how
far relevant - Held, prescriptions of
having
the
land
as
prescribed
in
Regulation 8(4) served a valid purpose,
however the prescription of having a
land on Government' lease or on a lease
from 'Government institutions', appears
to be arbitrary. (Para 13)
B.
National
Council
for
Teachers
Education
Act,
1993
-
Object
-
Regulatory mechanism inconsistent to
the
object
of
the
Act,
how
far
permissible - Held, the Council is bound
under
the
statute
to
promote
the
systematic
education
amongst
the
teachers and thus is duty bound to act in
furtherance of the object sought to be
achieved. The regulatory mechanism and
the powers conferred on the Council, in
terms of the Section 32(1) and in terms
of the Regulations as framed, clearly
cannot be inconsistent with the objects
sought to be achieved. (Para 13)
C. Interpretation of statute - Delegated
legislation - Scope of Rules making
power - Duty of the Court - J. K.
Industries Limited's case relied upon -
Where
the
validity
of
subordinate
legislation is challenged, the question to
be asked is whether the power given to
the rule making authority is exercised
for the purpose for which it is given.
Before reaching the conclusion that the
Rule is intra vires, the court has to
examine the nature, object and the
scheme of the legislation as a whole -
High
Court
held,
order
impugned
denying the benefit of recognition solely
based upon the petitioner not having a
registered
Government
lease
in
his
favour cannot be justified. (Para (14 and
15)
Writ petition disposed off. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contract to the contrary in between the
parties.

36. Once I have held that the
provision for confiscation of security is in
clear violation of Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India, Clause 6 of the
Government Order dated 12.06.2018 is
quashed insofar as it prescribes the
confiscation
of
security
money.
The
challenge to Clause 8 in the Government
Order
dated
12.06.2018
is
rejected
inasmuch as the same does not violate any
rights of the petitioner and is not prohibited
under any law. The money as directed shall
be paid to the petitioner within two months
from today.

37. No order as to the costs.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 560
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-C No. 29553 of 2018

C/M Dr. R.P. Memorial Degree College &
Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Tej Narayan, Girijesh Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., O.P.M. Tripathi

A. Educational institution - National
Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993
- Sections 14 & 15 - National Council for
Teacher Education (Recognition Norms
and Procedure) Regulations 2014 - Reg.
8(4) - Recognition for D.El.Ed. course -
Minimum
requirement
of
land
-
Prescription of lease from Government -
Permissibility - Rational nexus of the
prescription with the object of Act, how
far relevant - Held, prescriptions of
having
the
land
as
prescribed
in
Regulation 8(4) served a valid purpose,
however the prescription of having a
land on Government' lease or on a lease
from 'Government institutions', appears
to be arbitrary. (Para 13)
B.
National
Council
for
Teachers
Education
Act,
1993
-
Object
-
Regulatory mechanism inconsistent to
the
object
of
the
Act,
how
far
permissible - Held, the Council is bound
under
the
statute
to
promote
the
systematic
education
amongst
the
teachers and thus is duty bound to act in
furtherance of the object sought to be
achieved. The regulatory mechanism and
the powers conferred on the Council, in
terms of the Section 32(1) and in terms
of the Regulations as framed, clearly
cannot be inconsistent with the objects
sought to be achieved. (Para 13)
C. Interpretation of statute - Delegated
legislation - Scope of Rules making
power - Duty of the Court - J. K.
Industries Limited's case relied upon -
Where
the
validity
of
subordinate
legislation is challenged, the question to
be asked is whether the power given to
the rule making authority is exercised
for the purpose for which it is given.
Before reaching the conclusion that the
Rule is intra vires, the court has to
examine the nature, object and the
scheme of the legislation as a whole -
High
Court
held,
order
impugned
denying the benefit of recognition solely
based upon the petitioner not having a
registered
Government
lease
in
his
favour cannot be justified. (Para (14 and
15)
Writ petition disposed off. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

1. J. K. Industries Ltd. Vs U.O.I.; (2007) 13 SCC
673
9 All. C/M Dr. R.P. Memorial Degree College & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
561
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner
and Sri O.P.M. Tripathi, the counsel for the
respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 15.02.2018
whereby the request of the petitioner for
granting
recognition
of
conducting
D.El.Ed. Course was rejected solely on the
ground that the petitioner does not have the
land as prescribed in the Regulations of
2014 as well as the appellate order whereby
the appeal preferred has been dismissed on
13.8.2018.

3. The facts in brief are that the
petitioner is a society which has established
an educational institution to the girls student
in the name and style of Dr. Rajendra Prasad
Memorial College, Rajajipuram, Lucknow
and is approved for imparting B.A., B.Sc.,
B.Com., and B.Ed. Degree Courses. It is
stated that on 31.10.2009, the petitioner's
college has applied for grant of recognition
before the National Council for Teachers
Education (N.C.T.E.), the respondent no.3,
for imparting D.El. Ed. Course in the
prescribed format in terms of the mandate of
Section 14 and 15 of the NCTE Act, 1993.
On the said application, the respondent no.3
found the same to be short of requirements
and the same did not find favour with the
respondent authorities, thereafter an appeal
preferred by the petitioner was also rejected
on 27.09.2010. The petitioner challenged the
said two orders by filing a writ petition
no.6995 (MS) of 2012, which was allowed
and the matter was remanded vide judgment
dated 18.07.2013 (Annexure no.5).

4. It is stated that subsequent to the
remand, the respondents considered the
application of the petitioner and granted
recognition for running the D.El. Ed.
Course for the academic session 2016-17,
the petitioner claims that the petitioner also
got the sanction for affiliation from the
State Government. It is stated that all of a
sudden vide order dated 15.02.2018, the
petitioner was informed that the application
for recognition has been rejected in
exercise of the powers under section
14/15(3)(b) of the NCTE Act 1993 read
with the regulations framed thereunder.
The petitioner preferred an appeal against
the said order, which too has been
dismissed. Both the said orders are under
challenge.

5. The contention of the counsel for
the petitioner is that the sole reason
disclosed in the order rejecting recognition
is that the petitioner do not have the lease
land as required in terms of the regulations.

6. The counsel for the respondent
justify the order of cancellation on the
requirement as is prescribed under section
8(4) of the Regulations 2014 and argues
that the petitioner does not have the lease
land given by the Government and thus, his
case was rightly rejected.

7. The counsel for the petitioner has
annexed a copy of the registered lease deed
executed in his favour for a period of
ninety years w.e.f. 06.01.1998. The said
lease deed, on its perusal reveals that there
is no forfeiture clause contained in the
covenant.

8. To appreciate the controversy at
hand, it is essential to look into the
mandatory provision of the NCTE Act,
which itself was framed for establishing
and promoting Teacher Education System
in the whole of the country, recognizing the
need for teachers and the manner in which
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the said object can be achieved. Section 3
of the Act provides for Establishment of the
Council
comprising
of
the
members
specified therein and Chapter III of the said
Act provides for the functions of the
Council. Section 14 and 15 of the NCTE
Act, which are relevant for the present case
are quoted herein below :

Section
14.
Recognition
of
Institutions Offering Course or Training
in
Teacher
Education.?(1)
Every
institution offering or intending to offer a
course or training in teacher education on
or after the appointed day, may, for grant
of recognition under this Act, make an
application to the Regional Committee
concerned in such form and in such manner
as may be determined by regulations:

Provided that an institution offering a
course or training in teacher education
immediately before the appointed day, shall
be entitled to continue such course or
training for a period of six months, if it has
made an application for recognition within
the said period and until the disposal of the
application by the Regional Committee.

(2) The fee to be paid along with the
application under sub-section (1) shall be
such as may be prescribed.

(3) On receipt of an application by
the
Regional
Committee
from
any
institution under sub-section (1), and after
obtaining from the institution concerned
such other particulars as it may consider
necessary, it shall?

(a) if it is satisfied that such
institution
has
adequate
financial
resources,
accommodation,
library,
qualified staff, laboratory and that it
fulfils such other conditions required for
proper functioning of the institution for a
course or training in teacher education,
as may be determined by regulations,
pass an order granting recognition to
such
institution,
subject
to
such
conditions as may be determined by
regulations; or

(b) if it is of the opinion that such
institution does not fulfill the requirements
laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order
refusing recognition to such institution for
reasons to be recorded in writing:

Provided that before passing an
order under sub-clause (b), the Regional
Committee shall provide a reasonable
opportunity to the concerned institution
for making a written representation.

(4) Every order granting or refusing
recognition to an institution for a course
or training in teacher education under
sub-section (3) shall be published in the
Official Gazette and communicated in
writing for appropriate action to such
institution and to the concerned examining
body, the local authority or the State
Government and the Central Government.

(5) Every institution, in respect of
which recognition has been refused shall
discontinue the course or training in
teacher education from the end of the
academic session next following the date
of receipt of the order refusing recognition
passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3).

(6) Every examining body shall, on
receipt of the order under sub-section (4)?

(a) grant affiliation to the institution,
where recognition has been granted; or

(b) cancel the affiliation of the
institution, where recognition has been
refused

Section 15: Permission for a new
course
or
training
by
recognised
institution.?(1)
Where any recognized
institution intends to start any new course
or training in teacher education, it may
make an application to seek permission
therefor
to
the
Regional
Committee
concerned in such form and in such manner
as may be determined by regulations.
9 All. C/M Dr. R.P. Memorial Degree College & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
563

(2) The fees to be paid along with the
application under sub-section (1) shall be
such as may be prescribed.

(3) On receipt of an application from
an institution under sub-section (1), and
after
obtaining
from
the
recognized
institution such other particulars as may be
considered
necessary,
the
Regional
Committee shall?

(a) if it is satisfied that such
recognized
institution
has
adequate
financial
resources,
accommodation,
library, qualified staff, laboratory, and that
it fulfills such other conditions required for
proper conduct of the new course or
training in teacher education, as may be
determined by regulations, pass an order
granting permission, subject to such
conditions as may be determined by
regulations; or

(b) if it is of the opinion that such
institution does not fulfill the requirements
laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order
refusing permission to such institution for
reasons to be recorded in writing:

Provided that before passing an order
refusing permission under sub-class (b),
the Regional Committee shall provide a
reasonable opportunity to the institution
concerned
for
making
a
written
representation.

(4) Every order granting or refusing
permission to a recognized institution for a
new
course
or
training
in
teacher
education under sub-section (3), shall be
published in the Official Gazette and
communicated in writing for appropriate
action to such recognized institution and to
the concerned examining body, the local
authority, the State Government and the
Central Government."

On a plain reading, the intent of
scope of section 14 and 15 is to ensure
that the institutions seeking recognition
has
adequate
financial
resources,
accommodation, library, qualified staff,
laboratory and other conditions which
are required to promote the object for
which the Act was framed.

Section 32 of the said Act confers the
power
upon
the
council
to
make
regulations not in consistent with the
provisions of this Act and the Rules made
thereunder and to generally carryout the
provisions of this Act. In terms of the
power conferred upon the Council, the
Council has framed the regulations
known as The National Council for
Teacher Education (Recognition Norms
and Procedure) Regulations 2014 as
notified on 28.11.2014. Rule 8(4) of the
said Regulations with which we are
concerned is quoted herein below:

"8.
Conditions
for
grant
of
recognition. (1) .........

2. ...........

3. ..........

(4) (i) No institution shall be
granted
recognition
under
these
regulations unless the institution or
society sponsoring the institution is in
possession of required land on the date
of application. The land free from all
encumbrances
could
be
either
on
ownership basis or on lease from
Government or Government institutions
for a period of not less than thirty years.
In cases where under relevant State or
Union territory laws the maximum
permissible lease period is less than
thirty years, the State Government or
Union territory administration law shall
prevail and in any case no building shall
be taken on lease for running any
teacher training programme.

(ii)
The
society
sponsoring
the
institution shall have to ensure that
proposed teacher education institution has
a well demarcated land area as specified
by the norms.
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iii)
The
society
sponsoring
the
institution shall be required to transfer and
vest the title of the land and building in the
name of the institution within a period of
six months from the date of issue of formal
recognition order under sub-regulation
(16) of regulation 7. However, in case, the
society fails to do so due to local laws or
rules or bye-laws, it shall intimate in
writing with documentary evidence of its
inability to do so. The Regional Office shall
keep this information on record and place
it before the Regional Committee for its
approval."

11. The order apparently has been
passed in exercise of the said powers. The
counsel for the petitioner argues that
Regulation 8 (4), lays down conditions
which have no relevant nexus sought to be
achieved under section 14 and 15 of the
NCTE Act. He argues that the intent of the
law is to ensure that the institutions
granting recognition has adequate resources
in terms of financial and requirement of
accommodation.
He
argues
that
the
condition that the lease should be from a
'Government' or 'Government institutions'
has no relevant nexus sought to be achieved
in terms of the mandate of Section 14 and
15 of the Act. He also argues that even
under section 32 of the Act, the Council is
empowered to make regulations which are
not
inconsistent
with
the
statutory
provisions and should act in furtherance of
the objects sought to be achieved, whereas
the condition of a lease from Government
or Government institution, restricts the
scope of objects sought to be achieved
under section 14 and 15 of the Act.

12. Sri O.P.M. Tripathi the counsel
for the respondent reiterates that prior to
the passing of the order, an opportunity was
given on 25.05.2017, however as the
present case is being decided based upon
the scope of the Regulations and has no
relevance to the opportunity granted or not,
this Court is not going to the question of
grant of opportunity to the petitioner as
argued by him.

13. The intent of the scope of Section
14 and 15 of the Act is clearly discernible
in the language used in section 14 and 15 of
the Act. The Act aims to promote
systematic education for teachers training
and thus seeks to achieve a socio beneficial
effect on the society. The Council is bound
under the statute to promote the systematic
education amongst the teachers and thus is
duty bound to act in furtherance of the
object
sought
to
be
achieved.
The
regulatory mechanism and the powers
conferred on the Council, in terms of the
Section 32(1) and in terms of the
Regulations as framed, clearly cannot be
inconsistent with the objects sought to be
achieved. The prescription of lease from
'Government' or 'Government institutions'
alone clearly does not seem to achieve the
objects sought to be promoted under the
Act. There is no rational nexus as to how a
'Government' lease for thirty years suits the
cause better than a registered lease for a
period of ninety years (as is the case in the
present writ). Although there is no
challenge to the vires of Regulation 8(4),
this court is of the view that the
prescriptions of having the land as
prescribed in Regulation 8(4) served a valid
purpose, however the prescription of
having a land on 'Government' lease or on a
lease
from
'Government
institutions',
appears to be arbitrary and to save it from it
being declared ultra vires, the same has to
be read down to hold that the registered
lease for more than thirty years which is
validly recognized lease under the Transfer
of Property Act has to be held to be an
9 All. C/m Raj Dutta Shukla Purva Madhyamik Vs. State of U.P.
565
adequate compliance of the requirements as
prescribed under the Regulation 8(4)(i) of
the Regulations 2014.

14. The Supreme Court in the case of
J. K. Industries Limited vs. Union of
India;
(2007)
13
SCC
673,
while
interpreting the scope of Rules made in
exercise
of
the
delegated
legislation
recorded as under :

"Apart from the grounds referred to by
this Court in the above judgment in the
case of Indian Express Newspaper, it is
important to bear in mind that where the
validity of subordinate legislation is
challenged, the question to be asked is
whether the power given to the rule making
authority (in the present case the Central
Government under section 642 (1) of the
Companies Act) is exercised for the
purpose for which it is given. Before
reaching the conclusion that the Rule is
intra vires (we have to begin with the
presumption that the Rule is intra vires),
the court has to examine the nature, object
and the scheme of the legislation as a
whole and in that context, the court has to
consider what is the Area over which
powers are given by the section under
which the Rule Making Authority is to act.
However, the court has to start with the
presumption that the impugned Rule is
intra vires. This approach means that, the
Rule has to be read down only to save it
from being declared ultra vires if the court
finds in a given case that the above
presumption stands rebutted."

15. In the present case, as the
petitioner has a registered lease in his
favour and is running a B.Ed. course in the
same institution and same premises for
which recognition has been granted by
NCTE under same regulation, the order
impugned
denying
the
benefit
of
recognition solely based upon the petitioner
not having a registered Government lease
in his favour cannot be justified, as such,
the impugned orders dated 15.02.2018 and
13.08.2018 are set aside. The respondents
are directed to process the application of
the petitioner treating the registered lease
deed in his favour to be a valid document
as required under Regulation 8(4)(1) of the
NCTE
Regulations,
2014.
The
said
decision shall be taken in accordance with
law within a period of three months. The
said direction shall be subject to the
petitioner fulfilling all the requirements of
deposit of requisite fee etc. that may be
required to be paid.

16. The writ petition stands disposed
off with the said observations.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 565
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ-C No. 1005661 of 2008

C/m Raj Dutta Shukla Purva Madhyamik
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sanjay Misra, Girish Chandra Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Deepak Srivastava

A. Educational institution - Grant-in-aid
list - Enlisting - GO dated 07.09.2006 -
Principle of natural justice - Non-supply
of report - No opportunity of hearing to
rebut it - Effect - Reliance on a report
which was obtained subsequent to the