# C/m Jai Maa Gange Manav Kalyan Sanstha & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 694
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-22
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 22635 of 2021
- **Bench:** Jaspreet Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-jai-maa-gange-manav-kalyan-sanstha-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46635
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

Teacher Education Act, 1993: Section 14 -
U.P.
St.Universities
Act,
1973:
Section
37(11) - The first step for an Institution is to
procure recognition and after that it is required to
obtain affiliation. The affiliating body has a limited
field upon which it can act and after being
satisfied it can grant or refuse the affiliation. The
affiliating body does not have the powers to reenter into the considerations regarding primary
infrastructural facilities which have already been
examined by the N.C.T.E., while granting the
recognition. If the examining body or the
St.Authorities find deficiency in the infrastructure
then it can always recommend the cancellation of
the recognition to the Regional Committee of the
N.C.T.E. (Para 50)

The Court find that the grounds based on which
affiliation for the year 2021-22 has been refused to
the petitioner does not based on sound reasoning and
being arbitrary is hit by the Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. (Para 79)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,960 of 87,651. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39960 for what follows._

694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Singh vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah and Others,
AIR 1955 SC 425, Ramji Das and Another vs.
Mohan Singh, 1978 ARC 496 (SC) and the
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and
Another vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, (1987) 2
SCC 107.

19. In this case also, what was before the
Court is a declaratory suit, where title to
property is at stake. There is ex-facie no reason
why the plaintiff, who has moved the Court,
asking for declaration of his right, would not be
interested in the trial of his cause and judgment
on merits. The fact that an accident has
happened more than once, does not make it any
less an accident. At the same time, the plaintiff
ought to be careful in future and should
compensate the defendants in costs, subject to
which alone, he would be entitled to restoration.

20. In the circumstances, this petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders
dated 22.07.2021, passed by the Additional
Commissioner
(Judicial),
Ayodhya
Division,
Ayodhya and the order dated 11.10.2018, passed by
the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar,
Sultanpur, are hereby set-aside and reversed. The
petitioner's restoration application dated 27.02.2015
stands allowed, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- in
costs to the defendants. These costs shall be
deposited within a month of date with the Trial
Court, which shall be paid to the defendants. The
suit shall stand restored to file of the Additional
Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Sultanpur, who shall
proceed in accordance with law.
----------
(2021)12ILR A694
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Misc. Single No. 22635 of 2021
alongwith
Misc. Single No. 19490 of 2021

C/m Jai Maa Gange Manav Kalyan Sanstha &
Ors. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sharad Pathak, Piyush Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, Savitra Vardhan Singh,
Shivanshu Goswami

A. Interpretation of Statute - "Recognition"
and "affiliation" - National Council for
Teacher Education Act, 1993: Section 14 -
U.P.
St.Universities
Act,
1973:
Section
37(11) - The first step for an Institution is to
procure recognition and after that it is required to
obtain affiliation. The affiliating body has a limited
field upon which it can act and after being
satisfied it can grant or refuse the affiliation. The
affiliating body does not have the powers to reenter into the considerations regarding primary
infrastructural facilities which have already been
examined by the N.C.T.E., while granting the
recognition. If the examining body or the
St.Authorities find deficiency in the infrastructure
then it can always recommend the cancellation of
the recognition to the Regional Committee of the
N.C.T.E. (Para 50)

The Court find that the grounds based on which
affiliation for the year 2021-22 has been refused to
the petitioner does not based on sound reasoning and
being arbitrary is hit by the Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. (Para 79)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs St.of
U.P. & ors. (2013) 2 SCC 617

2. Managing Board of the Milli Talimi Mission, Bihar,
Ranchi & ors. Vs St.of Bihar & ors. (1984) 4 SCC 500

3. Mata Gujri Memorial Medical College Vs St.of Bihar
& ors. (2009) 16 SCC 309
11 All. C/m Jai Maa Gange Manav Kalyan Sanstha & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
695
4. Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr. Vs Manager. ST.
Alberts College & ors. (2012) 13 SCC 442

5. Institute of Technical Education & Research Centre
Vs St.of U.P. & ors. 2018 SCC OnLine All 841

6. Committee of Management Dr. M.C. Saxena College
of Education & anr. Vs St.of U.P. & ors. Writ Petition
No. 4125 (M/S) of 2013

7. Central Women College Vs St.of U.P. & ors. AIR
OnLine 2019 Alld 2233

8. Committee of Management, Anuragi Devi Degree
College & Anr. Vs St.of U.P. & anr. (2016) 12 SCC 517
(distinguished)

9. Chairman, Bhartia Education Society & anr. Vs St.of
H.P. & ors. (2011) 4 SCC 527

10. Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs International Airport
Authority of India & ors. (1979) 3 SCC 489

11. Ajay Hasia & ors. Vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi &
ors. (1981) 1 SCC 722

12. St.of Jharkhand & ors. Vs Brahmaputra Metallics
Ltd., Ranchi & anr. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 968

13. M/s Radha Krishan Industries Vs St.of H.P. & ors.
2021 OnLine SCC 334 (followed)

14.
Assistant
Commissioner
of
Sales
Tax
Vs
Commercial Steel Limited 2021 SCC OnLine 884
(followed)

15. M/s Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Vs St.of Bihar &
ors. 2021 SCC OnLine 801 (followed)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. The petitioner No.1 is the Committee of
Management Jai Maa Gange Manav Kalyan
Sansthan, Derwa Bazar, District Pratapgarh a
society
registered
under
the
Societies
Registration Act, 1860.

2. The Society as mentioned aforesaid runs
a college in the name of Pt. Shiv Sharan College
of Education, Derwa Bazar, District Pratapgarh
(hereinafter referred to as "the college"), who is
the petitioner No.3 and the petitioner No.2 is the
Manager of the aforesaid college.

3. In the year 2017, the college was duly
recognized by the National Council of Teacher
Education (hereinafter referred to as "N.C.T.E."
for short) for the course of Bachelor of
Education (B.Ed.) and got approval of one unit
(50) students annually.

4. After grant of recognition by the
N.C.T.E., the college applied for the affiliation
from the respondent No.3 University. The
University after making due inspection and
finding that the college complied with the
requisite norms granted the affiliation on
20.05.2018 for the course of Bachelor of
Education (B.Ed.) under the faculty of education
for a period of two academic years (2018-2019
and 2019-2020).

5. Since, the petitioners were granted the
affiliation for two academic sessions which was
drawing to an end in the academic session 201920, hence, the petitioners again applied for the
affiliation for the academic session 2020-21. The
University did not conduct any physical
inspection and extended the affiliation for
another year vide order dated 18.02.2021 for the
academic session 2020-2021.

6. Since, COVID-19 Pandemic was raging
in the country, accordingly, the petitioners on
15.03.2021 sent a detailed representation to the
respondent No.3 University received by them on
26.03.2021 and requested for further extension
of the affiliation for the academic session 20212022.

7. It is the case of the petitioners that the
respondent No.3-University did not respond to
the representation of the petitioners dated
26.03.2021, despite passage of four months. It is
only on 24.07.2021, the University uploaded a
letter on the login-I.D. of the petitioner-College
696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
stating that an inspection team has been
constituted by the University, of which the
petitioner is aware, and the petitioner has to get
an inspection conducted in order to get the
affiliation extended.

8. It is further stated that the petitioners
contacted the University but as per the
petitioner, no inspection team had been
constituted and for the aforesaid reason it could
not even deposit the fee for the inspection. Not
receiving
any
categoric
reply
from
the
University, the petitioner once again on
28.07.2021 submitted a representation along
with an affidavit indicating that the inspection of
the college was already made in the year 2019
and
every
requisite
norm
was
fulfilled.
However, certain minor shortcomings such as
lack of doors, windows and skylights were
noticed, which could not be completed on
account of suspension of classes on account of
COVID-19 Pandemic. However, the petitioner
was ready to get the same affixed within shortest
possible time and in contemplation thereof it
requested that the affiliation be extended for the
academic session 2021-2022.

9. Despite the aforesaid representation
dated 28.07.2021, no response was forthcoming
from the University. In the meantime, on
28.08.2021, a letter was issued by the
respondent No.3 University requiring the college
to submit their profile in the prescribed format
for the purposes of preparing the counseling
schedule which was scheduled to be held by the
Lucknow University.

10. In furtherance of the letter dated
28.08.2021, the petitioner submitted all the
relevant documents seeking participation in the
counseling for the Session 2021-2022 and the
hard copies of the said documents were also
submitted with the respondent No.3-University
on 29.08.2021.

11. It is a specific case of the petitioner
that between 24.07.2021 to 29.08.2021, 26
notices/letters raising various concerns were
uploaded on the College I.D. by the University.
However, the impugned letter/order dated
31.07.2021 is alleged to be uploaded antedated
inasmuch as the same was uploaded on the
College I.D. after 28.08.2021, wherein it
expressed its inability to grant the affiliation,
since, the inspection had not been conducted in
furtherance of the letter dated 24.07.2021.

12. Petitioners were not aware of the said
letter dated 31.07.2021 prior to 29.08.2021.
The petitioner being aggrieved and also
noticing that the career of the students was at
stake, preferred a Writ Petition No.19490 of
2021 (M/S), wherein the petitioner claimed the
following main reliefs, which are reproduced
hereinafter:-

"(a) To issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned
order dated 31.07.2021 issued by Opp-Party
no.2, so served upon the petitioner on
29.08.2021, so far as it relates to the petitioner,
the true copy of which is contained as Annexure1 to the writ petition.

(b) To issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding Opp.-
party no.2 to grant affiliation for the course of
B.Ed. in the light of permanent recognition
granted by the N.C.T.E. to the College.

(c) To issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding the
Opp-Parties namely Opp-Party No.5 to allow
the petitioners to participate in the counseling
for new admissions for the session 2021-2022
which is going to commence from 06.09.2021,
notwithstanding with the impugned order dated
31.07.2021 so served upon the petitioner on
29.08.2021."
11 All. C/m Jai Maa Gange Manav Kalyan Sanstha & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
697

13. A Coordinate Bench of this Court by
means of the order dated 03.09.2021 passed in
Writ Petition No.19490 of 2021 (M/S) noticing
the respective submissions passed an order and
the relevant portion thereof is being reproduced
hereinafter for ready reference:-

"13. This Court is prima facie satisfied
about the bonafide of the Institution in telling
the University fairly that it could not remove the
shortcomings
through
its
letter
dated
28.07.2021. As an interim measure, it is
therefore directed that the petitioner shall
deposit the fee for inspection within three days
from today in the University and also ensure
completion of all work/ removal of shortcomings
as pointed out in the report dated 18.05.2018.
The inspection team shall be sent by the
University to the College concerned on
07.09.2021 and if a positive report is submitted
in favour of the Institution, the respondent nos.2
and 3 shall pass appropriate orders regarding
grant of affiliation."

14. In furtherance of the order dated
03.09.2021, the petitioner deposited the requisite
fee and on 07.09.2021, the inspection of the
Collage was done by an Inspecting Team
comprising of two members (who have been
impleaded as respondent No.5 herein). Despite
the inspection having been done on 07.09.2021,
the report was not known nor the outcome was
informed to the petitioner while the counseling
was to commence on 17.09.2021. The dilemma
of the petitioner was made known to the Court
seized with Writ Petition No.19490 of 2021
(M/S) and a Coordinate Bench of this Court by
means of the order dated 15.09.2021 directed the
respondent-University to file its counter affidavit
within two days bringing on record the decision
taken in respect of the affiliation of the
petitioner-College.

15. Again on 21.09.2021, the matter was
directed to be placed on 23.09.2021 permitting
the University to bring on record the decision
taken on the affiliation. It is thereafter that the
decision taken by the respondent-University
refusing the affiliation to the petitioner-College
dated 22.09.2021 was brought on record.

16 . In view of the decision, not
recommending the grant of affiliation to the
petitioner taken by the University dated
22.09.2021 gave a fresh cause of action to the
petitioners, hence, the petitioners challenged the
same in the instant writ petition No.22635 of
2021 (M/S) and it is in the aforesaid backdrop
that the two writ petitions have been heard
together and are being decided by this common
judgment.

SUBMISSIONS
OF
THE
PETITIONERS:

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
primarily raised threefold submissions: First, it is a
case of the petitioner that it is the duty of the
N.C.T.E. to make an inspection and after noticing
the fact that the college concerned fulfills the
requisite norms and infrastructural facilities only
then it grants the recognition. Once, the
recognition is granted by the N.C.T.E., the
University is required to grant the affiliation and
while doing so, it may ensure that the college
complies with the necessary norms but it does not
have the powers to look into those matters which
have been considered and noticed by the N.C.T.E.

18. It is also urged that once the college was
granted the recognition as well as the affiliation for
the academic session 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and
also extended for the academic session 2020-2021,
there was no reason for the respondent-University
to have denied the affiliation to the petitioner for
the academic session 2021-2022.

19. The second limb of submission is that
the grounds upon which the affiliation has been
denied is actually not within the domain of the
698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
University to examine. It is also vehemently
stated that the report furnished by the Inspecting
Committee is arbitrary inasmuch as it has shown
deficiencies. If the said deficiencies would have
been existing in fact then the N.C.T.E., would
not have granted recognition to the college, in
the first place.

20. It is also urged that the manner in
which the report has been prepared shows a
complete non-application of mind with a
deliberate intent to refuse the recognition to
harm the petitioner and the career of various
students studying in the petitioner-College.

21. It is also urged that the arbitrariness is
writ large on the report since double standards
have been adopted by the Inspecting Committee
as well as the University inasmuch as for the
same deficiencies which were minor in nature
and it did not in any manner affect or hamper the
educational or infrastructural requirements and
for the same deficiencies large number of
colleges have been granted the affiliation, but
step-motherly treatment has been meted out with
the petitioners and affiliation has been denied to
them.

22. The third limb of the submission is that
the petitioner had applied for the affiliation in
the current academic session 2021-2022 within
the prescribed time-lines. The respondentUniversity did not inform the petitioner
regarding any discrepancies nor gave any
information for getting the college inspected.
The petitioner had already submitted its
subsequent representation in July, 2021 and also
submitted its hard copies with the University and
after almost a month, the impugned letter dated
31.07.2021 was uploaded antedated. The manner
in which the respondent has proceeded with the
application moved by the petitioner smacks of
malafides, as result, the petitioners have been
deprived of their rights in participating in the
counseling. Number of students, who are already
undertaking their education, their future and
careers have been put at stake solely on the
ground of high handedness, callousness and
arbitrariness of the respondents.

23. It is urged, that from the perusal of
the report submitted by the Inspection
Committee, it would indicate that all the
requisites were fulfilled by the petitioners in
the year 2019 when the college was inspected.
The only deficiency was non-availability of
certain doors, windows and skylights, which
as already urged were on account of COVID19 Pandemic. This aspect of the matter was
also noticed by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in its order dated 03.09.2021, however,
ignoring the aforesaid, the report dated
07.09.2021 has been submitted which states
that deficiency relating to doors, skylights and
windows had been cured but it has now taken
other grounds which were neither assessed
properly, nor it was in their domain and
artificial grounds have been raised, thus,
rendering the report per se illegal, arbitrary
and contrary to the records.

24. It is, thus, submitted that for all the
reasons, the impugned order dated 31.07.2021
and order dated 22.09.2021 refusing affiliation
are liable to be quashed and a direction be issued
to the respondents to consider and grant the
affiliation to the petitioner institution for the
academic year 2021-2022.

25. Learned counsel for the petitioners in
support of his submissions has relied upon the
following judgments:-

(a)
Maa
Vaishno
Devi
Mahila
Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2013)
2 SCC 617;

(b) Managing Board of the Milli
Talimi Mission, Bihar, Ranchi & Ors. v. State
of Bihar & Ors., (1984) 4 SCC 500;
11 All. C/m Jai Maa Gange Manav Kalyan Sanstha & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
699

(c) Mata Gujri Memorial Medical
College v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2009) 16
SCC 309;

(d) Mahatma Gandi University &
Anr. v. Manager, ST. Alberts College & Ors.,
(2012) 13 SCC 442;

(e) Institute of Technical Education
& Research Centre v. State of U.P. & 2 Ors.,
2018 SCC OnLine All 841;

(f) Committee of Managment Dr.
M.C. Saxena College of Education & Anr. v.
State of U.P. & Ors., Writ Petition No.4125
(M/S) of 2013, decided on 02.07.2013;

(g) Central Women College v. State of
U.P. & Ors., AIR OnLine 2019 Alld 2233.

SUBMISSIONS
OF
COUNSEL
FOR
THE
RESPONDENT
NO.3UNIVERSITY

26. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent No.3 University opposing the
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners, has submitted that the grant of
affiliation by the University is a process which
has been bound in a time-line as directed by the
Apex Court in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi
Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
(2013) 2 SCC 617.

27. It is urged that in furtherance of the
direction given by the Apex Court in the aforesaid
decision, the State of Uttar Pradesh has issued a
Government Order dated 10.06.2015 and the
affiliations and time-lines are subject to the same.
It is submitted that the petitioner has been at fault
inasmuch as it did not comply with all the requisite
norms. The report of the Inspection Committee is a
factual report which has noticed as many as sixteen
discrepancies. The University has taken a decision
solely on the basis of the said report. Once, the
Inspecting Team, who visited the college found
such large number of discrepancies persisting, a
conscious decision was taken that it was not
conducive to grant the affiliation as it would
jeopardize the careers of various students, who
may obtain admission in the petitioners' college.

28. It is further urged that the University has
no animosity with the petitioners and in case if
they comply with all the requisite norms and fulfill
the same, they always have an opportunity of
applying for the affiliation for the next academic
session and as such it cannot be said that either the
report is arbitrary or that there is any malafides
harboured by the respondents against the
petitioner.

29. It is further urged that it is for the
petitioners to establish that they had made a
requisite application within the time for seeking
the affiliation for the academic session 2021-22.
Since, the time-lines, which have been framed by
the Apex Court and has been recognized in terms
of the Government Order, it is not open for the
University to grant the affiliation after the expiry
of the time-line inasmuch as the Apex Court in the
case
of
Maa
Vaishno
Devi
Mahila
Mahavidyalaya
(supra)
has
made
several
observations including that any breach of the timelines would amount to contempt and for the said
reason, the respondents cannot be urged to do an
act which would be in the teeth of the order passed
by the Apex Court subjecting the respondents
being charged with the contempt of Court.

30. The other submission of the learned
counsel for the respondent No.3 is that the
instant writ petition is not maintainable
inasmuch as the petitioner has an adequate
remedy of preferring an appeal under the State
Universities
Act,
1973
before
the
State
Government.

31. It is urged that sub-section (11) of
Section 37 of the U.P. State Universities Act,
700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of
1973") categorically provides that any institution
whose application is rejected by the University
may prefer an appeal to the State Government
within 30 days from the receipt of the order of
the rejection which may either allow the appeal
or reject. The State Government shall also have
powers to review the matter on an application of
a college in cases where the complaint received
by it with respect to the irregularities committed
by the college.

32. It is, thus, urged that the issue at hand
is primarily whether the petitioners' college
complies with the necessary norms and
regarding the existence of the deficiencies as
noticed by the Inspecting Team, these are pure
questions of fact which may not be entertained
or taken note of by this Court in exercise of
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Thus, the appropriate remedy for the
petitioners would be to invoke the appellate
powers of the State Government, hence, for the
aforesaid reasons, the writ petition being devoid
of merits is liable to be dismissed.

33. In support of his submission, learned
counsel for respondent No.3 has relied upon the
decision
of
Committee
of
Management,
Anuragi Devi Degree College & Anr. v. State of
U.P. & Anr., (2016) 12 SCC 517.

DISCUSSIONS AND ANALYSIS

34. Heard Shri Sharad Pathak, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Shri Kuldeep Pati
Tripathi alongwith Shri Shivanshu Goswami,
leaned counsel for the respondent No.3
University and Shri Savitra Vardhan Singh,
learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

35. This Court vide its order dated
25.10.2021 had also required the University to
produce the record which was made available
and was retained by the Court for perusal as well
as to facilitate the dictation of the judgment.

36. Having heard learned counsel for the
respective parties, the Court has given anxious
consideration to the rival submissions and also
perused the record.

37. The two issues involved in the instant
petition can be succinctly noted as under:-

(i) Whether in the given facts and
circumstances, the respondent No.3 University
was justified in refusing the affiliation to the
petitioners;

(ii) Whether the petitioners should be
relegated to the forum of appeal in terms of
Section 37(11) of the Act of 1973.

38. In order to answer the first question, it
will be relevant to notice the powers exercised
by the N.C.T.E., and the State University
respectively relating to the grant of recognition
and affiliation to a college.

39. At the very outset, it will be relevant to
notice that the Central Government promulgated
the National Council for Teacher Education Act,
1993. The preamble indicates that the said Act
was to provide for establishment of a National
Council for the Teacher Education with a view
to
achieve
planned
and
co-ordinated
development of teacher education system
throughout the country. The regulation and
proper maintenance of norms and standards in
the
teacher
education
system
including
qualification of school teachers and for matters
connected therewith were within the framework
of the Act of 1993. The Act envisages the
establishment of a council tasked with a duty to
take all measures for ensuring planned and
coordinated development of teacher education
and for determination and maintenance of
11 All. C/m Jai Maa Gange Manav Kalyan Sanstha & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
701
standards for teacher education and purpose for
performing its function under the Act.

40. Section 12 of the Act of 1993 lays
down the various functions which are required to
be done by the council. Chapter-IV and more
particularly Section 14 of the Act of 1993 relates
to recognition of institutions offering course or
training in teacher education.

41. Section 14 of the Act of 1993 is being
reproduced for ease of reference:-

"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.

[Provided
further
that
such
institutions, as may be specified by the Central
Government by notification in the Official
Gazette, which--

(i) are funded by the Central
Government or the State Government or the
Union territory Administration;

(ii) have offered a course or training
in teacher education on or after the appointed
day till the academic year 2017-2018; and

(iii) fulfil the conditions specified
under clause (a) of sub-section (3),

shall be deemed to have been
recognised 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 fulfil 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
702 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

42. Section 15 of the Act of 1993 relates
to the permission for a new course or training
by recognized institutions. Sub-section (3) of
Section 15 provides that on receipt of an
application from an institution under subsection (1), and after obtaining from the
recognized institution such other particulars as
may be considered necessary, the Regional
Committee shall record its satisfaction that
such a recognized institution has adequate
financial resources, accommodation, library,
qualified staff, laboratory, and that if 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. In case, if the
Regional Committee 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 subject
to condition that before passing an order
refusing permission, the Regional Committee
shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the
institution concerned for making a written
representation.

43. Section 16 of the Act of 1993 further
mandates that no examining body shall, on or
after the appointed day, grant affiliation,
whether provisional or otherwise, to any
institution; or hold examination, whether
provisional or otherwise, for a course or
training conducted by a recognized institution,
unless the institution concerned has obtained
recognition from the Regional Committee
concerned, under Section 14 or permission for
a course or training under Section 15. Thus, it
would been seen that for any institution to
commence a course, it is sine qua non for the
institution to first acquire the recognition from
the N.C.T.E. It is thereafter that the institution
is required to seek affiliation from the
examining body under the State Universities
Act.

44. The issue regarding the purpose of
'recognition' and 'affiliation' and the powers of
the authorities under the N.C.E.T. and State Act
came for consideration before the Apex Court in
the case of Chairman, Bhartia Education
Society & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh &
Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 527. The case arose under
the N.C.E.T. Act and after noticing the Scheme,
the Apex Court in Paragraph-19 to 24 of the said
report has held as under:-

"19. The purpose of "recognition" and
"affiliation" is different. In the context of the
N.C.T.E. Act, "affiliation" enables and permits
an institution to send its students to participate
in the public examinations conducted by the
examining body and secure the qualification in
the nature of degrees, diplomas, certificates. On
the other hand, "recognition" is the licence to
the institution to offer a course or training in
teacher education. Prior to the N.C.T.E. Act, in
the absence of an apex body to plan and
11 All. C/m Jai Maa Gange Manav Kalyan Sanstha & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
703
coordinate development of teacher education
system,
respective
regulation
and
proper
maintenance of the norms and standards in the
teacher education system, including grant of
"recognition" were largely exercised by the
State Government and universities/boards. After
the enactment of the N.C.T.E. Act, the functions
of N.C.T.E. as "recognising authority" and the
examining bodies as "affiliating authorities"
became crystallised, though their functions
overlap on several issues. The N.C.T.E. Act
recognises the role of examining bodies in their
sphere of activity.

20. Section 14 of the NCTE Act
requires recognition of the institution by NCTE,
before the institute could offer any course or
training in teacher education. Sub-section (4) of
Section 14 provides that:

"14. (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
examining body concerned, the local authority
or the State Government and the Central
Government."

Sub-section (6) of Section 14 requires
every examining body on receipt of the order
under sub-section (4):

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

cancel the affiliation of the institution,
where recognition has been refused."

21. Section 16 of the NCTE Act provides
that notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, no examining
body shall grant affiliation whether provisional or
otherwise, to any institution, or hold examination
for a course or training conducted by a recognised
institution, unless the institution concerned has
obtained recognition from the Regional Committee
of NCTE under Section 14 or permission for a
course or training under Section 15 of the Act.

22. Sub-section (6) of Section 14 no
doubt mandates every examining body to grant
affiliation to the institution on receipt of the order
of NCTE granting recognition to such institution.
This only means that recognition is a condition
precedent for affiliation and that the examining
body does not have any discretion to refuse
affiliation with reference to any of the factors
which have been considered by NCTE while
granting recognition. For example, NCTE is
required to satisfy itself about the adequate
financial resources, accommodation, library,
qualified staff, and laboratory required for proper
functioning of an institution for a course or
training in teacher education. Therefore, when
recognition is granted by NCTE, it is implied that
NCTE has satisfied itself on those aspects.
Consequently, the examining body may not refuse
affiliation on the ground that the institution does
not
have
adequate
financial
resources,
accommodation,
library,
qualified
staff,
or
laboratory required for proper functioning of the
institution. But this does not mean that the
examining body cannot require compliance with
its own requirements in regard to eligibility of
candidates for admissions to courses or manner of
admission of students or other areas falling within
the sphere of the State Government and/or the
examining body. Even the order of recognition
dated 17-7-2000 issued by NCTE specifically
contemplates the need for the institution to comply
with and fulfil the requirement of the affiliating
body and the State Government, in addition to the
conditions of NCTE.

23. We extract below Conditions 4, 5
and 6 of the order of recognition issued by
NCTE in this behalf:
704 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"4. The admission to the approved
course shall be given only to those candidates
who are eligible as per the regulations
governing the course and in the manner laid
down
by
the
affiliating
university/State
Government.

5. Tuition fee and other fees will be
charged from the students as per the norms of
the affiliating university/State Government till
such time NCTE regulations in respect of fee
structure come into force.

6. Curriculum transaction, including
practical work/activities, should be organised as
per the NCTE norms and standards for the
course and the requirements of the affiliating
university/examining body."

24. The examining body can therefore
impose its own requirements in regard to
eligibility of students for admission to a course
in addition to those prescribed by NCTE. The
State Government and the examining body may
also regulate the manner of admissions. As a
consequence, if there is any irregularity in
admissions or violation of the eligibility criteria
prescribed by the examining body or any
irregularity with reference to any of the matters
regulated and governed by the examining body,
the examining body may cancel the affiliation
irrespective of the fact that the institution
continues to enjoy the recognition of NCTE.
Sub-section (6) of Section 14 cannot be
interpreted in a manner so as to make the
process of affiliation, an automatic rubberstamping consequent upon recognition, without
any kind of discretion in the examining body to
examine
whether
the
institution
deserves
affiliation or not, independent of the recognition.
An institution requires the recognition of NCTE
as well as affiliation with the examining body,
before it can offer a course or training in
teacher education or admit students to such
course or training. Be that as it may."

45. The issue once again engaged the
attention of the Apex Court in the case of Maa
Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra),
wherein the Apex Court in Paragraphs 66 to 68
noticed the issue and conflict arising from the
Central Act i.e. N.C.T.E. Act and the State
Universities Act, which is the law enacted by the
State. For ready reference, paragraphs 67 and 68
of the said report are being reproduced
hereinafter:-

"67. In the present case, we are
concerned with the provisions of the N.C.T.E.
Act which is a Central legislation referable to
Schedule VII List I Entry 66. Thus, no law
enacted by the State, which is in conflict with the
Central law, can be permitted to be operative.

68. Now, let us examine the conflict
that arises in the present cases. In terms of the
provisions of the Act, the Regional Committee is
required to entertain the application, consider
State opinion, cause inspection to be conducted
by an expert team and then to grant or refuse
recognition in terms of the provisions of the Act.
Once a recognition is granted and before an
institution can be permitted to commence the
course, it is required to take affiliation from the
affiliating body, which is the university."

Thereafter, the Apex Court noticing
various decisions of the Apex Court in
Paragraph 69 to 71 of the said report has held as
under:-

"69. Thus, grant of recognition or
affiliation to an institute is a condition precedent
to running of the courses by the institute. If
either of them is not granted to the institute, it
would not be in a position to commence the
relevant academic courses. There is a possibility
of some conflict between a University Act or
Ordinance relating to affiliation with the
provisions of the Central Act. In such cases, the
matter
is
squarely
answered
in
Sant
11 All. C/m Jai Maa Gange Manav Kalyan Sanstha & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
705
Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya
[(2006) 9 SCC 1] where the Court stated that
after coming into operation of the Central Act,
the operation of the University Act would be
deemed to have become unenforceable in case of
technical colleges. It also observed that
provision of the Universities Act regarding
affiliation of technical colleges and conditions
for grant of continuation of such affiliation by
the university would remain operative but the
conditions that are prescribed by the university
for grant and continuation of affiliation must be
in conformity with the norms and guidelines
prescribed by N.C.T.E..

70. Under Section 14 and particularly
in terms of Section 14(3)(a) of the Act, N.C.T.E.
is required to grant or refuse recognition to an
institute. It has been empowered to impose such
conditions as it may consider fit and proper
keeping in view the legislative intent and object
in mind. In terms of Section 14(6) of the Act, the
examining body shall grant affiliation to the
institute where recognition has been granted. In
other words, granting recognition is the basic
requirement for grant of affiliation.