# 2 S.C.R. 1 ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA AND OTHERS v. SUBHASH RAHANGDALE AND OTHERS - **Citation:** [2012] 2 S.C.R. 1 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2012-01-06 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 104 of 2012 - **Bench:** G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/2-s-c-r-1-adarsh-shiksha-mahavidyalaya-and-others-v-subhash-rahangdale-and-28118 - **Pages:** 103 ## Headnote NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION ACT, 1993: Object of its enactment - Discussed. Teachers - Role of, in Education system - Necessity of adequate teacher training - Discussed. A B Public Interest Litigation - Writ petition praying for issue D of direction tO the NCTE for ensuring proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system - Whether High Court committed an error in entertaining writ petition filed in the name of public interest litigation without making enquiry into the background of petitioner and his E special interest in the field of teacher education and ordering· an inquiry into the allegations of irregularities committed in the matter of recognition and affiliation of self-financed private institutions and admission of the students by such institutions - Held: Writ petitioner was seeking to highlight grave F irregularities committed by the Western Regional Committee of NCTE in granting recognition to private institutions who did not fulfill the mandatory conditions relating to financial resources, accommodation, library, laboratory and other physical infrastructure and qualified staff and admitted G students who had either not passed the entrance test or had not appeared for the centralised counselling conducted under the directions issued by the State Government - Therefore, it cannot be said that High Court committed error in 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R. A entertaining the writ petition and in ordering the enquiry - Directions passed - National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005 and 2007 - Regulation~ 7(2) and (3). 8 ss.14(3), 15(3) - Conditions prescribed ulss.14(3), 15(3) - Grant of recognition - Held: Regional, Committees established u/s. 20 of the Act are duty bound to ensure that no private institution offering or intending to offer a course or ·training in teacher education is granted recognition unless it C satisfies the conditions specified in s.14(3)(a) and Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations. Likewise, no recognised institution intending to start any new course or training in teacher education shall be granted permission unless it satisfies the conditions specified in s.15(3)(a) of the 1993 Act and the relevant Regulations - National Council for Teacher D Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005 and 2007 - Regulations 7, 8. ss.14(3), 15(3) - Recognition - Date of effect - Held: Recognition granted by the Regional Committees uls.14(3)(a} E read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations and permission granted u/s. 15(3)(a) read with the relevant Regulations shall operate prospectively, i.e., from the date of communication of the order of recognition or permission, as the case may be - Neither the NCTE nor the University can F make it retrospective in nature - National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005 and 2007 - Regulations 7, 8. ss.14(3), 15(3) - Discontinuance of course or training when recognition is refused/withdrawn - Held: . If the G recognition is refused u/s.14(3)(b) after affording reasonable opportunity to the applicant to make a written representation, the concerned institution is required to discontinue the course or training from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order - Similarly, withdrawal of H recognition becomes effective from the end of the academic ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 3 RAHANGDALE session next following the date of communication of the order A of withdrawal . s.18 - Right of appeal - Held: Any institution aggrieved by the decision of the Western Regional Committee to reject the application for recognition or for permission to start a new 8 course or training or withdrawal of recognition uls. 17 shall be free to avail remedy of appeal uls. 18 of the Act. EDUCA TIONIEDUCA T/ONAL INSTITUTIONS: Recognised/Unrecognised institutions - Entitlement of c students to appear ## Text _Characters 0–39,685 of 187,198. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39685 for what follows._ (2012] 2 S.C.R. 1 ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA AND OTHERS v. SUBHASH RAHANGDALE AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 104 of 2012) . JANUARY 06, 2012 [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.) NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION ACT, 1993: Object of its enactment - Discussed. Teachers - Role of, in Education system - Necessity of adequate teacher training - Discussed. A B Public Interest Litigation - Writ petition praying for issue D of direction tO the NCTE for ensuring proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system - Whether High Court committed an error in entertaining writ petition filed in the name of public interest litigation without making enquiry into the background of petitioner and his E special interest in the field of teacher education and ordering· an inquiry into the allegations of irregularities committed in the matter of recognition and affiliation of self-financed private institutions and admission of the students by such institutions - Held: Writ petitioner was seeking to highlight grave F irregularities committed by the Western Regional Committee of NCTE in granting recognition to private institutions who did not fulfill the mandatory conditions relating to financial resources, accommodation, library, laboratory and other physical infrastructure and qualified staff and admitted G students who had either not passed the entrance test or had not appeared for the centralised counselling conducted under the directions issued by the State Government - Therefore, it cannot be said that High Court committed error in 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R. A entertaining the writ petition and in ordering the enquiry - Directions passed - National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005 and 2007 - Regulation~ 7(2) and (3). 8 ss.14(3), 15(3) - Conditions prescribed ulss.14(3), 15(3) - Grant of recognition - Held: Regional, Committees established u/s. 20 of the Act are duty bound to ensure that no private institution offering or intending to offer a course or ·training in teacher education is granted recognition unless it C satisfies the conditions specified in s.14(3)(a) and Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations. Likewise, no recognised institution intending to start any new course or training in teacher education shall be granted permission unless it satisfies the conditions specified in s.15(3)(a) of the 1993 Act and the relevant Regulations - National Council for Teacher D Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005 and 2007 - Regulations 7, 8. ss.14(3), 15(3) - Recognition - Date of effect - Held: Recognition granted by the Regional Committees uls.14(3)(a} E read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations and permission granted u/s. 15(3)(a) read with the relevant Regulations shall operate prospectively, i.e., from the date of communication of the order of recognition or permission, as the case may be - Neither the NCTE nor the University can F make it retrospective in nature - National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005 and 2007 - Regulations 7, 8. ss.14(3), 15(3) - Discontinuance of course or training when recognition is refused/withdrawn - Held: . If the G recognition is refused u/s.14(3)(b) after affording reasonable opportunity to the applicant to make a written representation, the concerned institution is required to discontinue the course or training from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order - Similarly, withdrawal of H recognition becomes effective from the end of the academic ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 3 RAHANGDALE session next following the date of communication of the order A of withdrawal . s.18 - Right of appeal - Held: Any institution aggrieved by the decision of the Western Regional Committee to reject the application for recognition or for permission to start a new 8 course or training or withdrawal of recognition uls. 17 shall be free to avail remedy of appeal uls. 18 of the Act. EDUCA TIONIEDUCA T/ONAL INSTITUTIONS: Recognised/Unrecognised institutions - Entitlement of c students to appear in the examination - Held: The students admitted by unrecognised institution and institutions which are not affiliated to any examining body are not entitled to appear in the examination conducted by the examining body or any other authorised agency - The students admitted by the 0 1 recognised institutions otherwise than through the entrance/ eligibility test conducted in accordance with the admission procedure contained in para 3.3 of Appendix-1 of the Regulations are also not entitled to appear in the examination conducted by the examining body or any other authorised E agency - National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005 and 2007 - Regulations 7, 8. NATURAL JUSTICE: Writ petition praying for issue of direction to NCTE for ensuring proper maintenance of norms F and standards in the teachers education system - High Courl directed that recognition can be granted to an institution intending to undertake teacher training course only if the mandatory conditions are fulfilled and that the examining body cannot grant affiliation to any institution unless it is G recognized by the NCTE - Plea of the appellants that directions given by High Court were vitiated due to violation of rules of natural justice since none of them were impleaded as patty to the writ petition and they did not get opportunity to show that they were duly recognized by competent authority H 4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 2 S.C.R. A - Held: The conclusions recorded by High Court and the directions contained in the impugned order were of general application and did not target any particular college or institution - Therefore, the appellants cannot be heard to make a grievance that the impugned order was violative of the rules B of natural justice. ._ NA T/ONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDU CA TJON (RECOGNITION NORMS AND PROCEDURE) REGULATIONS, 2005 AND 2007: Regulations 7(2) and (3) ...,.. Role of State Government in the matter of grant of . C recognition to the private institutions who want to conduct teacher training course - Held: Regulations 7(2) and (3) lay down' that a copy of the application form submitted by the institution(s) shall be sent by the office of the Regional Committee to the State Government/Union Territory D Administration concerned and the latter shall furnish its recommendatiOns within 60 days from receipt of the copy of the application - If the State Government/Union Territory Administration does not make favourable recommendations, then it is required to provide detailed reasons/grounds with E necessary statistics - While deciding the application made for recognition, the Regional Committee is duty bound to consider the recommendations of the State Government/UT Administration. F Admission procedure - Held: Private institutions cannot admit students de hors the entrance examination conducted by the State Government. One 'S' filed a writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation and prayed for issue of direction to the NCTE, G State of M.P., Barkatullah University anCI others for ensuring proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system in various colleges run by different educational societies/entities or the institutions financed by Central/State Government or Union Territory H Administration or the universities including the deemed ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 5 RAHANGDALE universities and self-financed educational institutions A established and operated by non-profit making societies and trusts registered within the State. Several other institutions filed similar writ petitions. By interlocutory order dated 17 .12.2008 and final order dated 13.03.2009, the High Court highlighted the 8 need for well-equipped and trained teachers because in the last three decades private institutions engaged in conducting teacher training courses/programmes had indulged in brazen and bizarre exploitation of the aspirants for admission to teacher training courses and C ranked commercialisation. The instant appeals were filed challenging the interim order and the final order of the High Court. The questions which arose for consideration in the o instant appeals were whether the High Court committed an error by entertaining the writ petition filed by 'S' as public interest litigation; whether the impugned order was contrary to the rules of natural justice, i.e., audi alteram partem; whether the State Government has any role in the E matter of grant of recognition to the private institutions who want to conduct teacher training course; whether the private institutions could have made admissions de hors the entrance examination conducted by the State Government; whether the students who had taken F admission in unrecognized institutions or the institutions which had not been granted affiliation by the examining body have the right to appear in the examination and whether the Court can issue a mandamus for declaration of the result of such students simply because they were allowed to provisionally appear in the examination in G compliance of the interim orders passed by the High Court and/or this Court. Dismissing the appeals, the Court H 6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R. A H.ELD: 1.1. THE SCHEME OF. THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION ACT, 1993 AND THE REGULATIONS. With a view to achieve the object of planned and coordinated development for the teacher education system throughout th«;l country and for B regulation and proper mai.ntenance of norms and standards ill the teacher education syst~m and for matters connected· therewith, Parliamen.t enacted the National council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, The 1993 Act provides for the establishment of a Cou.ncil to · c be: cailed the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) yvith multifarious functions, powers and· duties. Section 2(c) of the Act defines the terQl "c.ouncil" tc;> mean a council established under sub-section (1) of Section 3. Section 2(i) defines the term "reco~nised institution" to D me.an an institution recognised under Section 14. Section 2(j) .defines .the term "Regional Committee" to mean a committee e.stablished under Section 20. section 3 provides for establishment of the Council which comprises of a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperso_n, a Member-Secretary, various functionaries of·. the E Government, thirteen pe.rsons possessing experience and ·knowledge in the field of education or teaching, nine members representing. the States .and the Union Territories administration,· th.ree members of Parliament, three. members ,to be .appoin,ted from amongst teachers F of primary and secondary education ·and teachers of recognised institutions. Section 12 of the Act enumerates functions of the Council. Section 14 provides for recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education. Section 15 lays down the procedure G for obtaining permission by an existing institution for starting a new .course or training. Section 16 cont.ains a non obstante clause and lays down that an examining body shall not grant affiliation to any institution or hold examination for a course or training conducted by a H recognised institution unless it has obtained recognition ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 7 RAHANGDALE from the Regional Committee concerned under Section A 14 or permission for starting a new course or training under Section 15. The mechanism for dealing with the cases involving violation of the provisions of the Act or the Rules, Regulations, Orders made or issued thereunder or the conditions of recognition by a recognised B institution finds place in Section 17. By an amendment made in July 2006, Section 17-A was added to the Act. It lays down that no institution shall admit any student to a course or training in teacher education unless it has obtained recognition under Section 14 or permission C under Section 15. Section 31 (1) empowers the Central Government.to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act. Section 31 (2) specifies the matters in respect of which the Central Government can make rules. Under Section 32(1) the Council can make regulations for implementation of the provisions of the Act subject to the D rider that the regulations shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. In exercise of the power vested in it under Section 32, the NCTE has, from time to time, framed the regulations. [Paras 5.1, 6] [23-B-H; 24-A-D; 34-D) E Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat (1974) 1 SCC 717 : 1975 (1) SCR 173; Andhra Kesari Education Society v. Director of School Education (1989) 1 SCC 392 : 1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 893; State of F Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale (1992) 4 SCC 435 : 1992 (3) SCR 792; St. Johns' Teachers Training Institute (for Women), Madurai v. State of Tamil Nadu (1993) 3 SCC 595 : 1993 (3) SCR 985 - relied on. N. M. Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1986 G (Supp.) SCC 166; Food Corporation of India v. Bhanu Lodh · (2005) 3 SCC 618 : 2005 (2) SCR 350 - referred to. 2. By filing the writ petition, the respondent had sought to highlight grave irregularities committed by the H 8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R. A Western Regional Committee of NCTE in granting recognition to private institutions who did not fulfill the mandatory conditions relating to financial resources, accommodation, library, laboratory and other physical infrastructure and qualified staff and admitted students B who had either not passed the entrance test or had not appeared for the centralised counselling conducted under the directions issued by the State Government. The respondent derived support from the orders passed by the High Court in various cases. The statement made C by the Member Secretary, NCTE, who appeared before this Court on 21.7.2010, that effective steps have been taken after discovery of irregularities in ~he grant of recognition to various private colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh and other States falling within the 0 Western Region also gives credence to the respondents' assertion that all was not well with the Western Regional Committee. In the pleadings filed before this Court, the appellants have not suggested that the respondents had filed the writ petition to settle score with any institution or with some ulterior motive. Therefore, it cannot be said E that the High Court committed error by entertaining the writ petition and ordering an inquiry into the allegations of irregularities committed in the matter of recognition and affiliation of self-financed private institutions and admission of the students by such institutions. If the High F Court had not ordered re-scrutiny of the recognition/ affiliation granted to the private institutions, the irregularities committed by Western Regional Committee may never have seen the light of the day and we do not see any reason to nullify the exercise undertaken by the G High Court to ensure that the provisions of the 1993 Act and the Regulations thereunder are strictly followed by the authorities entrusted with the task of granting recognition and affiliation to the institutions and colleges engaged in conducting teacher training courses. [Para H 18] [82-D-G; 83-A-C] ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 9 RAHANGDALE State of Uttarancha/ v. Ba/want Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 A SCC 402: 2010 (1) SCR 678; Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 : 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595; Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2003) 7 SCC 532 : 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 746; Rajiv Ranjan Singh "Lalan" (VIII) v. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 613 : 2006 (4) Suppl. B SCR 7 42; M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (2007) 1 SCC 110 : 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 683; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2008) 1 SCC 407 : 2007 (10) SCR 1060; Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (1987) 1 SCC 227 : 1987 (1) SCR 458 - relied on. c 3. In the impugned order, the High Court has not · discussed eligibility or entitlement of any particular institution to get recognition or affiliation. What High Court has done is to interpret the relevant statutory provisions in the light of the judgments of this Court and D orders passed by it in other writ petitions. After examining the provisions of the 1993 Act and the Regulations, the High Court held that sub-section (3) of Section 14 and clauses of Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations are mandatory and that recognition can be E granted to an institution intending to undertake teacher training course only if the mandatory conditions are fulfilled. The High Court also held that the examining body cannot grant affiliation to any institution unless it is recognized by the NCTE. The High Court highlighted F the distinction between refusal to grant recognition under Section 14(3)(b) and withdrawal of.the recognition under Section 17 and held that any person aggrieved by the· decision of the competent authority refusing to grant ·recognition or to withdraw the recognition already G granted is entitled to avail remedy of appeal. The conclusions recorded by the High Court and the directions contained in the impugned order were of general application and did not target any particular college or institution. Therefore, the appellants cannot be H 10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R. A heard to make a grievance that the impugned order is violative of the rules of natural just~e. [Para 19) [83-DH; 84-A-B] 4. Regulation 7(2) and (3) of the 2005 and 2007 8 Regulations lay down that a copy of the application form submitted by the institution(s) shall be sent by the office of the Regional Committee to the State Government/ Union Territory Administration concerned and the latter shall furnish its recommendations within 60 days from receipt of the copy of the application. If the State C Government/Union Territory Administration does not make favourable recommendations, then it is required to provide detailed reasons/grounds with necessary statistics. While deciding the application made for recognition, the Regional Committee is duty bound to D consider the recommendations of the State Government I UT Administration. The last portion of Regulation 7(3) contains a deeming provision and lays down that if no communication is received from the State Government/ Union Territory Administration within 60 days, then it shall E be presumed that the concerned State Government/ Union Territory Administration has no recommendation to make. [Para 20] (84-C-F] 5. No recognition/permission can be granted to any F institution desirous of conducting teacher training course unless the mandatory conditions enshrined in Sections 14(3) or 15(3) read with the relevant clauses of Regulations 7 and 8 ·are fulfilled and that in view of the negative mandate contained in Section 17A read with G Regulation 8(10), no institution can admit any student unless it has obtained unconditional recognition from the Regional Committee and affiliation from the examining body. [para 26] (94-B-C] State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan H Shastra Mahavidyalaya (2006) 9 SCC 1 : 2006 (3) ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 11 RAHANGDALE SCR 638; Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B. A Educational Society (2005) 3 SCC 212 : 2005 (2) SCR 302; National Council for Teacher Education v. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan (2011) 3 SCC 238 : 2011 (2) SCR 291; A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1986) 2 SCC 667: 1986 (2) B SCR 749; St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, NCTE (2003) 3 SCC 321 : 2003 (1) SCR 975 - relied on 6. The High Court answered the question whether the private institutions could have made admissions de C hors the entrance examination cond1Jcted by the State Government in the negative by relying upon the · admission procedure contained in para 3.3 of Appendix1, which contains the Norms and Standards for Secondary' Teachers Education Programme. The D appellants have not questioned the vires of the admission procedure. Therefore, they cannot contend that they were.e11titled to admit students de hors the list prepared on the basis of entrance examination conducted under the directions of the State Government. [para 27] [94-0E F] 7. The impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court. (i) The Regional Committees established under Section 20 of the 1993 Act are duty bound to ensure that no private institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education is granted recognition unless it satisfies the conditions specified in Section 14(3)(a) of the 1993 Act and Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations. Likewise, no G recognised institution intending to start any new course or training in teacher education shall be granted permission unless it satisfies the conditions specified in Section 15(3)(a) of the 1993 Act and the relevant Regulations. H F A B c D E F G H 12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R. (ii) The State Government I UT Administration, to whom a copy of the application made by an institution for grant of recognition is sent in terms of Regulation 7(2) of the Regulations, is under an obligation to make its recommendations within the time specified in Regulation 7(3) of the Regulations. (iii) While granting recognition, the Regional Committees are required to give due weightage to the recommendations made by the State Government/UT · Administration and keep in view the observatio.ns made by this Court in St. Johns Teachers Training , Institute v. Regional Director, NCTE (2003) 3 SCC 321 and National Council for Teacher Education v. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan, which have been extracted in the earlier part of this judgment (iv) The recognition granted. by the Regional Committees under Section 14(3)(a) of the 1993 Act read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations and permission granted under Section 15(3)(a) read with the relevant Regulations shall operate prospectively, i.e., frorn the date of communication of the order of recognition or permission, as the case may be. (v) The recognition can be refused by the Regional Committee under Section 14(3)(b), in the first instance, when an application for recognition is made by an institution. Likewise, permission can be refused under Section 15(3)(b). (vi) If the recognition is refused under Section 14(3)(b) after affording reasonable opportunity to the applicant to make a wrUten representation, the concerned institution is required to discontinue the course or training frorn the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order. ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 13 RAHANGDALE (vii) Once the recognition is granted, the same can A be withdrawn only under Section 17(1) if there is a contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules, or the Regulations, or orders made therein, or any condition subject to which recognition was granted under Section 14(3)(a) or permission was B granted under Section 15(3)(a). (viii) The withdrawal of recognition becomes effective from the end of the academic session next following . the date of communication of the order of withdrawal. (ix) Once the recognition is withdrawn under Section c 17(1 ), the concerned institution is required to discontinue the course or training in teacher education and the examining body is obliged to cancel the affiliation. The effect of withdrawal of the D recognition is that the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to the course or training undertaken at such institution is not to be treated as valid qualification for the purpose of employment under the Central Government, any E · State Government or University or in any educational body aided by the Central or the State Government. (x) In view of the mandate of Section 16, no examining body, as defined in Section 2(d) of the 1993 Act, shall grant affiliation unless the applicant F has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee under Section 14 or permission for starting a new c6urse or training under Section 15. (xi) While granting affiliation, the examining body G shall be free to demand rigorous compliance of the conditions contained in the statute like the University Act or the State Education Board Act under which it was established or the guidelines I norms which may H A B c D E F G H 14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R. have been laid down by the concerned examining body. (xii) No institution shall admit any student to a teacher training course or programme unless it has obtained recognition under Section 14 or permission . under Section 15, as the case may be. (xiii) While making admissions, every recognised institution is duty bound to strictly adhere to para 3.1 to 3.3 of the Norms and Standards for Secondary/ Pre-School Teacher Education. Programme contained in Appendix-1 to the Regulations. (xiv) If any institution admits any student in violation of the Norms and Standards laid down by the NCTE, then the Regional Committee shall initiate action for withdrawal of the recognition of such insti~ution and pass appropriate order after complying with the rules of natural justice. (xv) The students admitted by unrecognised institution and institutions which are not affiliated to any examining body are not entitled to appear in the examination conducted by the examining body or any other authorised agency. (xvi) The students admitted by the recognised institutions otherwise than through the entrance/ eligibility test conducted in accordance with the admission procedure contained in para 3.3 of Appendix-1 of the Regulations are also not entitled to appear in the examination conducted by the examining body or any other authorised agency. (xvii) The NCTE shall issue direction for mandatory inspection of recognised institutions on periodical basis and all the Regional Committees are duty ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 15 RAHANGDALE bound to take action in accordance with those A directions. (xviii) In future, the High Courts shall not entertain prayer for interim relief by unrecognised institutions and the institutions which have not been granted affiliation by the examining body and/or the students B admitted by such ~nstitutions for permission to appear in the examination or for declaration of the result of examination. This would also apply to the . recognised institutions if they admit students otherwise than in accordance with the procedure C contained in Appendix-1 of the Regulations. [Para 33] [98-C-H; 99-A-H; 100-A-H; 101-A-H; 102-A-B] In the instant appeals the following directions are passed: D (i) Within one month from today, the concerned examining body shall declare the result of the students who were admitted for the session 20072008 keeping in view the directions containetj in the impugned orders. This .would mean that result of the E students admitted for the session 2007-2008 by the institutions whose cases were scrutinised by the NCTE pursuant to the directions given by the High Court and who were found to have been validly recognised after compliance with the mandatory F conditions specified in Section 14(3)(a) of 1993 Act I and Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations shall be declared. (ii) The result of the students admitted by an unrecognized institution or by an institution which G had not been granted affiliation by the examining body shall not be declared. The result of the students who were admitted without qualifying the entrance examination shall also not be declared. In other words, the students admitted by the private H 16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R. A institutions on their own shall not be entitled to declaration of their result. If any private institution had not complied with the requirements of completing the prescribed training, then the result of students of such institution shall also not be declared. B c D E F G H (iii) The directions contained in the preceding clause shall not be used for dealing with the admissions made for the sessions 2005-2006, 2006-2007 or 20082009. The admissions made for those years shall be dealt with by the Western Regional Committee. and the concerned examining body in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. (iv) Any institution aggrieved by the decision of the Western Regional Committee to reject the application for recognition or for permission to start a new course or training or withdrawal of recognition under Section 17 shall be free to avail remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the 1993 Act. If any such appeal is filed by the aggrieved party within 30 days from today, then the Appellate Authority shall entertain and decide the same on merits. (v) If the Western Regional Committee has taken any action in furtherance of the directions given by the High ·Court, then the aggrieved person shall be entitled to challenge the same by availing remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the 1993 Act. [Para 34] [102-8-H; 103-A-E] Case Law Reference: 1975 (1) SCR 173 relied on Para 2.1 1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 893 relied on Para2.2 1992 (3) SCR 792 relied on Para 2.3 1993 (3) SCR 985 relied on Para 2.4 ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 17 RAHANGDALE 1986 (Supp.) sec 166 referred to Para 2.5 A 2005 (2) SCR 350 referred to Para 9.3 2006 (3) SCR638 relied on Para 9.3 2010 (1) SCR 678 relied on Para 16 B 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595 relied on Para 16 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 746 relied on Para 16 2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 7 42 relied on Para 16 c 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 683 relied on Para 16 2007 (10) SCR 1060 relied on Para 16 1987 (1) SCR 458 relied on Para 17 2003 (1) SCR 975 relied on Para 21 D 2005 (2) SCR 302 relied on Para 22 2011 (2) SCR 291 relied on Para 24 1986 (2) SCR 749 relied on Para 29 E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 104 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 13.03.2009 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ F Petition No. 6146 of 2008. WITH C.A. Nos. 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, G 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 & 147 of 2012. P.S. Patwalia, S.K. Dubey, P.N. Mishra, Jasbir Singh Malik, Gouri Karuna Das, Bhakti Pasrija, Shanti Kumar Jaisani, H 18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R. A Ajay Singh, Sanjeev Kumar Sharma (for R.C. Kaushik), S.K. Sabharwal, B.K. Satija, P.P. Singh, Vipin Kumar, K.K. Shrivastava, Deepak Goel, Dr. Kailash Chand, R.C. Kohli, G. Prakash, Neeraj Shekhar, Ashutosh Thakur, Nikhil Jain, Kuna! Verma, Urned Singh Gulia, Vikram Singh Gulia, Santosh Paul, B Sriharsh N. Bundela, At.!1ay Kumar, Arti Singh, Anilendra Pandey, Priya Kashyap, Brijesh Pandey, Amitesh Kumar, Ravi Kant (for Gopal Singh), B.S. Banthia, Vikas Upadhyay, Varun Thakur, Shankar Dinate, Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Shree Prakash Sinha, Vijay Kumar, Shekhar Kumar, Niraj Sharma, C Raju! Shrivastav, S.K. Verma, Rukhsana Choudhary, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Vibudhendra Mishra, M.k. Michael, Ekta Kadiyan, Anu Gupta, Tapan Trivedi, Gopal Singh, Amitesh Kumar, Ravi Kant for the appearing parties. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GS. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The importance of teachers and their training has been highlighted time and again by eminent educationists· and E leaders of society. The Courts have also laid considerable emphasis on the dire need of having qualified teachers in schools and colleges. F G H 2.1 In Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat (1974) 1 SCC 717, A.N. Ray, C.J., observed: "Educational institutions are temples of learning. The virtues of human intelligence are mastered and . harmonised by education. Where there is complete harmony between the teacher and the taught, where the teacher imparts and the student receives, where there is ·complete dedication of the teacher and the taught in learning, where there is discipline between the teacher and the taught, where both are worshippers of learning, no discord or challenge will arise. An educational institution runs smoothly when the teacher and the taught are engaged in the common ideal of pursuit of knowledge. It ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 19 RAHANGDALE [G.S. SING_HVI, J.] is, therefore, manifest that the appointment of teachers is A an important part in educational institutions. The qualifications and the character of the teachers are really important. The minority institutions have the right to administer institutions. This right implies the obligation and puty of the minority institutions to render the very best to B the students. In the right of administration, checks and balances in the shape of regulatory measures are required to ensure the appointment of good teachers and their conditions of service. The right to administer is to be tempered with regulatory measures to facilitate smooth c administration. The best administration will reveal no trace or colour of minority. A minority institution should shine in exemplary eclectism in the administration of the institution. The best compliment that can be paid to a minority institution is that it does not rest on or proclaim its minority 0 character. Regulations which will serve the interests of the students, regulations which will serve the interests of the teachers are of paramount importance in good administration. Regulations in the interest of efficiency of teachers, E discipline and fairness in administration are necessary for preserving harmony among affiliated institutions. Education should be a great cohesive force in developing integrity of the nation. Education develops the ethos of the F nation. Regulations are, therefore, necessary to see that there are no divisive er disintegrating forces in administration." 2.2 In Andhra Kesari Education Society v. Director of School Education (1989) 1 SCC 392, this Court observed: G "Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the role of teachers is central to all processes of formal education.The teae