# ANOTHER v. VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2012] 10 S.C.R. 919
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2012-11-01
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7749 of 2012
- **Bench:** K.S. Radhakrishnan, Dipak Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/another-v-venus-public-education-society-and-others-27955
- **Pages:** 31

## Headnote

Educational institution -
Seeking recognition from
National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) - For C
academic session 2010-11 - Council asking the institution
to remove deficiencies - The institution moving the Court for
direction to grant recognition - High Court directing to
consider the case for grant of recognition - NCTE issuing
'letter of intent' to the institution - The institution, instead of D
complying with the same, moved court for grant of recognition
for academic session 2011-12 - High Court directing to
consider the case - NCTE issuing order of recognition for the
academic session 2012-13 with direction to comply with postrecognition conditions and directing to give admission to E
students only after obtaining affiliation from the examining
body -
The institution giving admission to students for
academic session 2011-12 and approaching the court for
direction to treat the recognition granted for the academic
session 2012-13 as recognition for academic Session 2011F
12 - High Court directing to grant recognition for academic
session 2011-12 with annual intake of 50 students - On
appeal, held: Direction of the High Court is contrary to the
provisions of law and interpretation of 1993 Act and 2009
Regulations - The recognition granted for academic session G
2012-13 could not have been directed to be retrospectively
operative as certain formalities remained to be complied with
-
The institution could not have given admission without
recognition and affiliation with examining body - NCTE a/so
919
H
920
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 10 S.C.R.
A should have acted in promptitude and not to create a feeling
that educational institutions are harassed - National Council
for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - s. 14 - National Council
for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2009 - Regulations 5(5), 7(9), 7(11), 8(1) and
B 8(12).
The respondent-Society made an application in
October 2009 to the Western Regional Committee (WRC)
of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) for
grant of recognition for the purpose of conducting
C D.El.Ed. course from the academic session 2010-11. WRC
asked the Society to remove certain deficiencies. On the
basis of the report of the inspection of the Society, WRC
refused recognition. The appellate authority, directed
inspection by NCTE headquarters. As per the order,
D inspection was conducted. After the submission of the
report, appellate authority allowed the appeal, reversing
the order of WRC and directing to process the case on
merits.
E
The society filed writ petition No. 454112011 seeking
direction for NCTE to grant recognition for the academic
session 2010-11. During pendency of the petition, WRC
intended to conduct further inspection. High Court
quashed the decision of inspection by WRC and directed
F to consider the case, for grant of recognition in
accordance with order passed by appellate authority. As
the order passed by High Court was not complied with,
the society filed another writ petition. High Court
observed that the society was at liberty to file a contempt
G petition.
WRC then issued 'letter of intent' under Clause 7(9)
of National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition,
Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009. In the
meantime the society filed contempt petition for nonH compliance of order passed in writ petition No. 454112Q.11.
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.
921
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY
The High Court directed to consider the case of the A
Society.
During pendency of the contempt petition, the
Society filed still another writ petition for direction for
grant of recognition for academic session 2011-12. WRC
8
on 27-1-2011 issued an order of recognition of the
session 2012-13 and directed the Society to comply with
all post-recognition conditions enumerated under clause
8(11) to 8(16) of 2009 Regulations. It was stated that the
Society to make admission only after it obtained affiliation
from examining body. The Society agai

## Text

_Characters 0–39,750 of 57,140. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39750 for what follows._

[2012] 10 S.C.R. 919
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND
A
ANOTHER
v.
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 7749 of 2012)
NOVEMBER 1, 2012
B
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]
Educational institution -
Seeking recognition from
National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) - For C
academic session 2010-11 - Council asking the institution
to remove deficiencies - The institution moving the Court for
direction to grant recognition - High Court directing to
consider the case for grant of recognition - NCTE issuing
'letter of intent' to the institution - The institution, instead of D
complying with the same, moved court for grant of recognition
for academic session 2011-12 - High Court directing to
consider the case - NCTE issuing order of recognition for the
academic session 2012-13 with direction to comply with postrecognition conditions and directing to give admission to E
students only after obtaining affiliation from the examining
body -
The institution giving admission to students for
academic session 2011-12 and approaching the court for
direction to treat the recognition granted for the academic
session 2012-13 as recognition for academic Session 2011F
12 - High Court directing to grant recognition for academic
session 2011-12 with annual intake of 50 students - On
appeal, held: Direction of the High Court is contrary to the
provisions of law and interpretation of 1993 Act and 2009
Regulations - The recognition granted for academic session G
2012-13 could not have been directed to be retrospectively
operative as certain formalities remained to be complied with
-
The institution could not have given admission without
recognition and affiliation with examining body - NCTE a/so
919
H
920
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 10 S.C.R.
A should have acted in promptitude and not to create a feeling
that educational institutions are harassed - National Council
for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - s. 14 - National Council
for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2009 - Regulations 5(5), 7(9), 7(11), 8(1) and
B 8(12).
The respondent-Society made an application in
October 2009 to the Western Regional Committee (WRC)
of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) for
grant of recognition for the purpose of conducting
C D.El.Ed. course from the academic session 2010-11. WRC
asked the Society to remove certain deficiencies. On the
basis of the report of the inspection of the Society, WRC
refused recognition. The appellate authority, directed
inspection by NCTE headquarters. As per the order,
D inspection was conducted. After the submission of the
report, appellate authority allowed the appeal, reversing
the order of WRC and directing to process the case on
merits.
E
The society filed writ petition No. 454112011 seeking
direction for NCTE to grant recognition for the academic
session 2010-11. During pendency of the petition, WRC
intended to conduct further inspection. High Court
quashed the decision of inspection by WRC and directed
F to consider the case, for grant of recognition in
accordance with order passed by appellate authority. As
the order passed by High Court was not complied with,
the society filed another writ petition. High Court
observed that the society was at liberty to file a contempt
G petition.
WRC then issued 'letter of intent' under Clause 7(9)
of National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition,
Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009. In the
meantime the society filed contempt petition for nonH compliance of order passed in writ petition No. 454112Q.11.
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.
921
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY
The High Court directed to consider the case of the A
Society.
During pendency of the contempt petition, the
Society filed still another writ petition for direction for
grant of recognition for academic session 2011-12. WRC
8
on 27-1-2011 issued an order of recognition of the
session 2012-13 and directed the Society to comply with
all post-recognition conditions enumerated under clause
8(11) to 8(16) of 2009 Regulations. It was stated that the
Society to make admission only after it obtained affiliation
from examining body. The Society again filed writ petition C
for direction to grant the recognition from academic
session 2011-12 or to treat the recognition dated 27-1012 as the recognition for the session 2011-12. The High
Court decided the writ petition alongwith the contempt
petition and held that the Society was entitled to D
recognition for academic session 2011-12 with an annual
intake of 50 students. Hence the present appeal.
The appellant contended that direction of the High
Court in the impugned judgment is legally impermissible
E
as the Society had not fulfilled the NCTE norms and also
the recognition could not have been made effective
retrospectively.
The Society contended that after the order of the
High Court, it was obligatory on the part of WRC to confer
F
recognition; and that the Society was compelled to admit
students under the circumstances of the case and
therefore the students admitted for the session 2011-12
should be allowed to undertake the examinations.
G
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In view of Section 14 of National Council
for Teacher Education Act, 1998 and Regulations 5(5),
7(9), 7(11), 8(1) and 8(12) of National Council for Teacher
H
922
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 10 S.C.R.
A Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2009, it is vivid that the university or
examining body is required to issue letter of affiliation
after formal recognition under sub-regulation (11) of
Regulation 7 of the 2009 Regulations is issued. It is also
B clear that certain obligations are to be carried out by the
institution after letter of intent is received. The letter of
intent was communicated to the institution as well as to
the affiliating body with a request that the process of
appointment of qualified staff as per the policy of the
c State Government or University Grants Commission or
University may be initiated and the institution may be
provided all assistance to ensure that the staff or faculty
is appointed as per the norms of the NCTE within two
months. It was obligatory on the part of the institution to
0
submit the list of the faculty, as approved by the affiliating
body, to the Regional Committee. Thus understood, the
letter of intent laid down the conditions which were to be
fulfilled by the institution. The said letter was issued on
22.9.2011 and the formal order of recognition was issued
on 27 .10.2011. Clause 6 of the same, clearly stipulates
E that the institution shall make admission only after it
obtains its affiliation from the examining body in terms of
clause 8(12) of the 2009 Regulations. [Para 26] [942-E-H;
943-A-B]
F
1.2 The High Court has erred in misconstruing its
earlier order passed in Writ Petition 4541 of 2011. True it
is, there was some delay and, therefore, the High Court
was moved in another writ petition wherein it had granted
liberty to file a contempt petition expecting that the
G directions in the earlier order would be duly complied
with. Thereafter, letter of intent was issued, but the
institution instead of complying with the same, moved
the High Court for grant of recognition. The High Court,
in the initial order had directed to consider the case of
H the respondent-institution for grant of recognition without
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.
923
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY
further inspection. Issuance of letter of intent was A
necessary prior to grant of formal letter of recognition.
However, the High Court being moved, directed for
issuance of formal letter of recognition which was issued
with a postulate that the institution shall only grant
admission after obtaining affiliation from the examining B
body in terms of clause 8(12) of 2009 Regulations. The
order of recognition clearly mentioned that it was meant
for the academic session 2012-13. [Para 33) [947-D-G]
1.3 The High Court could not have directed the
recognition to be retrospectively operative because C
certain formalities remained to be complied with. The High
Court did not keep itself alive to the conceptual difference
between "letter of intent" and "formal recognition".
Though there was delay, but that could not have enabled
the High Court to issue a writ for treating the recognition D
to be effective for the year 2011-12 with intake of fifty
students. That apart, the respondent-institution had not
obtained affiliation from the university. Therefore, the
direction of the High Court is contrary to the provisions
of law and the interpretation of the Act and the E
Regulations. [Para 34] (947-H; 948-A-C]
1.4 Without recognition from the NCTE and affiliation
from the university/examining body, the educational
institution cannot admit the students. An educational F
institution is expected to be aware of the law. The
students who take admission are not young in age. They
are graduates. They are expected to enquire whether the
institution has recognition and affiliation. The institution
had given admission in a nonchalant manner. The
institution betrayed the trust of the students and the G
students, in a way, atrophied their intelligence. [Para 35]
[948-D-F; 949-A]
Chairman, Bharlia Education Society and Anr. v. State
ofHimacha! Pradesh and Ors. {2011) 4 SCC 527: 2011
H
924
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 10 S.C.R.
A
(2) SCR 461 ;Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhsh
Rahangdale and Ors.2012 (2) SCC 425; Andhra Kesari
Educational Society v.Director of School Education (1989) 1
SCC 392: 1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 893; A.P. Christian Medical
Educational Society v. Govt. of
A.P. (1986) 2 SCC 667:
a 1986 (2) SCR 749; N.M.Nageshwaramma v. State of A.P.
1986 Supp SCC 166; State of Maharashtra v Vikas Sahebrao
Roundale (1992) 4 SCC 435:1992 (3) SCR 792; St. John's
Teachers Training Institute (for
Women) v. State of T.N.
(1993) 3 sec 595: 1993 (3) SCR 985 - relied on.
c
Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of
Gujarat (1974)1 SCC 717: 1975 (1) SCR 173; Shri Morvi
Sarvajanik KelavniMandal Sacha/it MSKM BEd College v.
National Council forTeachers' Education and Ors. (2012} 2
SCC 16: 2011 (13)SCR 555; State of T.N. v. St. Joseph
D Teachers Traininglnstitute (1991) 3 SCC 87: 1991 (2) SCR
231 - referre_d to.
2. NCTE should have acted in quite promptitude, for
a statutory authority which is conferred with the power,
E is required to act within the parameters of law and the
directions given by the court and further not to create a
feeling among the educational institutions that they are
harassed. Its actions neither should show arbitrariness
nor should it reflect any indulgence. Objectivity, reliability
F and trust are to be the motto of the NCTE and the
committees working under it. [Para 36) [949-C-EJ
G
H
Case Law Reference:
1975 (1) SCR 173
Referred to
1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 893 Referred to
2011 (2) SCR 461
Relied on
2011 (13) SCR 555
Referred to
Para 3
Para 3
Para 27
Para 28
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.
925
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY
1986 Supp sec 166
Referred to
Para 28
1991 (2) SCR 231
Referred to
Para 28
1992 (3) SCR 792
Relied on
Para 28
2012 (2) sec 425
Relied on
Para 29
1986 (2) SCR 7 49
Relied on
Para 31
1986 Supp sec 166
Relied on
Para 31
1993 (3) SCR 985
Relied on
Para 31
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7749 of 2012.
From the Judgment & Order dated 7 .12.2011 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Writ Petition (C) No.
7664 of 2011.
Amitesh Kumar, Ravi Kant, Preeti Kumari, Chandra
Shakher, Navin Prakash for the Appellants.
A
B
c
D
Ranjit Kumar, Varun Thakur, Brajesh Pandey, Varinder E
Kumar Sharma, Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. Leave granted.
F
2. Acquisition of knowledge and obtaining of necessary
training for imparting education have their immense
signification. As C. Simmons would like to put it ''The secret of
successful teaching is to teach accurately, thoroughly, and
earnestly" and one may fruitfully add that accuracy and G
thoroughness can be achieved by cultivated education, matured
training and keen intellect. That is why teaching becomes a
teacher's passion and religion. A good teacher, in a way,
represents country's orderly civilization. A teacher is expected
to kindle interest in the taught by method of investigation,
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
926
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 10 S.C.R.
incessant implantation of knowledge and demonstration of
experience that is replete with intellectual pragmatism. A student
who is keen on getting training has to keep in mind the concept
of reason, conception of logic and sanctity of rationality. He is
expected to distance himself from habitual disobedience and
unfettered feeling, for a civilized society which is governed by
Rule of Law does not countenance such character!stics. The
aspiration to become a teacher after obtaining training requires
these qualities as they constitute the base on which the
superstructure is built.
3. Importance of teachers and their training, significance
of qualified teachers in schools and colleges and their
centripodal role in building of the nation have been highlighted
in Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of
Gujarat1, Andhra Kesari Educational Society v. Director of
School Education2, State of Maharashtra v Vikas Sahebrao
Rounda/e3, St. John's Teachers Training Institute (for Women)
v. State of T. N. 4 and N. M. Nageshwaramma v. State of A. P. 5,
and recently reiterated in Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya and
others v. Subhash Rahangdale and others6•
4. It is to be clearly stated that an institution that is engaged
or interested in getting involved in imparting a course for training
has to obey the command of law in letter and spirit. There cannot
be any deviation. But, unfortunately, some of the institutions
flagrantly violate the norms with adamantine audacity and seek
indulgence of the court either in the name of mercy or sympathy
for the students or financial constraint of the institution or they
have been inappropriately treated by the statutory regulatory
1.
(1974) 1 sec 717.
2.
(1989) 1 sec 392.
3.
(1982) 4 sec 435.
4.
(1993) 3 sec 595.
5.
1986 Supp sec 166.
6.
(2012) 2 sec 425.
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.
927
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
bodies. None of these grounds justify deviation. The case at A
hand graphically depicts deviations but the High Court putting
the blame on the statutory authority has granted relief to the
respondent-institution which is impermissible.
5. The factual exposition of the present litigation 8
demonstrably reflects the combat between the truth and
falsehood, battle between justice and injustice, the contestation
between the accord and discord, the collision between fairness
and manipulation, the scuffle betwixt the sacrosanctity of the
majesty of law and its abuses and the clash between the
mandated principles and invocation of sympathy. Such a C
controversy emerges because majesty, sanctity and purity of
law have been corroded and truth, however, relative it may be
in the mundane world, has its own command and the same has
been deliberately guillotined forgetting the fundamental fact that
none can afford to build a castle in Spain in the realm of truth.
D
It is worthy to note that justice in its connotative expanse engulfs
the liberalism of an ocean, the magnanimity of the Sun, the
sternness of a mountain, the simplicity of a saint, the austerity
of a Spartan and the humility of a river. The concept of justice
has to remain embedded in spite of adversities. It should E
remain unshaken, unterrified, unperturbed and loyal to the Rule
of Law. In the case at hand, as a maladroit effort has been
made to give an indecent burial to the command of law and
pave the path of injustice, the same has to be dealt with sternly
sans sympathy.
F
6. Presently to the factual narration. The respondentsociety submitted an application on 27 .10.2009 to the Western
Regional Committee (for short "the WRC") of National Council
for Teacher Education (for brevity "the NCTE") for grant of G
recognition for the purpose of conducting D.El.E~. course from
the academic session 2010-11. On receipt of the said
application the WRC, after scrutiny of the same, issued a
communication dated 10.2.2010 to remove certain
deficiencies, namely, the institution had submitted the lease
H
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 10 S.C.R.
A
deed issued by Gwalior Development Authority in favour of the
Society for a period of thirty years but the same was not certified
by the competent authority; that it had submitted copy of the
building plan approved by Nagar Nigam, Gwalior meant for
school purposes and not for the college; that the land use
B
certificate issued by the competent Government authority was
not submitted; that the building completion certification from the
competent Government authority was not filed; that the
encumbrance certificate from the competent Government
authority was not submitted; and that necessary undertaking in
C the prescribed format was not enclosed. The respondent
institution was advised to remove the deficiencies within a span
of sixty days. It was also required to submit a reply pertaining
to the deficiencies pointed out by the WRC. The respondent
submitted its reply on 20.3.2010 and the same was considered
0
in the 133rd meeting of the WRC held on 20-21.04.2010. On
11.5.2010 the WRC informed the respondent that it would
conduct an inspection for D.El.Ed. course for the academic
session 2010-11 on a date between 21.5.2010 to 30.5.2010.
The visiting team carried out the inspection and submitted its
report to the WRC which, in its 136th meeting held on 5E
7.6.2010, decided to issue a show cause notice under Section
14(3)(b) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act,
1993 (for brevity 'the 1993 Act') and, accordingly, a show cause
notice was issued on 19.6.2010 requiring the respondent to file
its representation within twenty one days. The reply to show
F
cause notice was received on 7.7.2010 and the WRC
considered the same and took the decision on 20-21.7.2010
to refuse recognition on the ground that the approved building
plan submitted by the college showed a square building with
ground and two floors, whereas the videograph showed the
G building was rectangular and having ground and one floor. The
said decision was communicated vide order dated 3.8.2010
whereunder the WRC refused recognition in exercise of power
under Section 14(3)(b) of the 1993 Act.
H
7. As the factual matrix further gets unfolded, the
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.
929
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
respondent preferred an appeal on 29.9.2010 under Section
A
18 of the 1993 Act and the appellate authority by order dated
10.11.2010 opined as follows: -
"AND WHEREAS Shri Vivek Gupta, !?resident,
Venus Public Education Society, Gwalior, Madhya
8
Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institutiqn on
20.10.2010. In the appeal and during perso11al
presentation, it was submitted that there was not at all any
mismatch between the approved plan and videography.
The building with Ground and two floors was constructed
C
in the same shape according to the building plan which
was also proved by the completion certificate. The
similarity was also proved with the relevant clip of the
videography which was submitted wherein the building
was visible with ground and two floors with the visiting
team. The position of the existing building with ground plus
D
two floors was also proved by the photographs of the
building taken from different angles. The ground taken by
the WRC that the building was square and rectangular was
an after thought which was totally unlawful. The WRC did
not communicate such type of objection earlier. The
E
building was more than sufficient and fulfills the norms and
standards of the NCTE.
AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the VT
report did not indicate the dimensions of the rooms as well
F
as the total built up area available for the proposed course.
The report also did not contain an essential data sheet in
which the particulars with regard to land and built up area
details are to be filled. It merely stated the infrastructural
facilities were as per the NCTE norms. Further the
G
photographs annexed with the appeal do not confirm to the
VCD available in the WRC's file. In view of this the Council
came to the conclusion that an inspection of the institution
may be conducted by the NCTE Hqrs. for taking a final
decision in the appeal."
1-1
A
B
c
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 10 S.C.R.
On the basis of the aforesaid order a team was
constituted which submitted the report and eventually, after
perusal of the report, the NCTE, on 11.3.2011, passed the
following order: -
"AND WHEREAS the Council noting that the report
of the visiting team from the Hqrs. of the Council has
clarified the position, came to the conclusion that the
appeal deserves to be accepted and the order of the WRC
reversed with a direction to process the case further on
merits.
_AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents,
memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral
arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council
reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground
0
to accept the appeal and reverse the WRC's order dated
03.08.2010 with the direction to the WRC to process the
case further on merits. Accordingly, the appeal was
accepted and the order of the WRC dated 03.08.2010
reversed."
E
8. After the appeal was disposed of, the WRC decided to
constitute a visiting team. In the meantime the respondent
preferred Writ Petition No. 4541 of 2011 for issue of writ of
mandamus to the NCTE to grant recognition for the aca~mic
session 2010-11 for D.El.Ed. course. During the pendency of
F the writ petition, on 22. 7.2011 the WRC decided to conduct
further inspection between 22. 7.2011 to 30. 7.2011. The
inspecting team visited the respondent institution on 27.7.2011
and submitted its report to the WRC. The report indicated that
a functionary of the Society told the team that as the matter was
G subjudice, the WRC had no authority to inspect. However, the
team went to the institution and took photographs of the
building. When the matter came up before the High Court on
28.7.2011, it, after narrating the chronological events and the
order passed by the appellate authority, issued the followin!;J
H directions: -
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.
931
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
"(i)
That the decision of the Respondent No. 1 for
A
inspection of the petitioner institution vide letter
dated 22.7.2011 is hereby quashed;
(ii)
The respondent is directed to consider the case of
the petitioner for grant of recognition in accordance
8
with the order passed by Appellate Authority dated
11.3.2011.
(iii)
The case of the petitioner shall be considered for
grant of recognition within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
C
9. As the order was not complied with within the stipulated
time, the respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 5776 of 2011.
The High Court disposed of the same by observing that the
grievance of the petitioner was that in spite of direction issued
D
by the court in the earlier writ petition, the respondents had yet
not complied with the direction and for the aforesaid purpose,
the petitioner was at liberty to file a contempt petition. The High
Court further observed that it was expected that the respondents
shall obey the direction issued by the court in W.P. C No. 4541/
E
2011.
10. As is perceptible, the WRC in its 154th meeting held
on 11-12.9.2011 considered the matter and vide order dated
22.9.2011 issued a "letter of intent" for grant of recognition for
D.El.Ed. course under clause 7(9) of National Council for
F
Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2009 (for short "2009 Regulations"). The relevant
part of the said letter of intent reads as follows: -
"3. Before grant of formal recognition under Regulation
G
7(11) of the NCTE Regulations 2009, is considered, you
are requested to submit the following:
(i)
The institution shall initiate the process of
appointments of qualified staff as per Policy of
State Government or University Grants
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
932
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 10 S.C.R.
Commission or University and ensure that the staff
or faculty is appointed as per the NCTE norms
within two months. (in case of M.Ed. six months).
The Institute shall submit the list of faculty as
approved by the affiliating body to the Western
Regional Committee. An affidavit on the enclosed
format of Rs.100/- Non-Judicial Stamp Paper from
each faculty member appointed are to be
submitted.
(ii)
The institute shall launch its own website covering
interalia, the details of the institution, its location,
name of the course applied for with intake,
availability of physical infrastructural (land, building,
office, class rooms and other facilities/amenities),
infrastructural facilities (laboratory, photographs,
Permanent Account Number (PAN) or Unique
Identity Number (UIN) of the teacher educator
whenever issued by the NCTE), for information of
all concerned. The institution shall also make
available on its website information relating to:
i.
Sanctioned programmes along with annual
intake in the institution.
j.
Name of faculty and staff in full as
'mentioned in school certificate along with
their qualification, scale of pay and
photograph.
k.
Name of faculty Members who left or joined
during the last quarter.
I.
Names of students admitted during the
current session alongwith qualification,
percentage of marks in the qualifying
examination and in the entrance test, if any,
date of admission etc.
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.
933
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
m.
Fee charged from students
A
n.
Facilities added during the last summer.
o.
Number of books in the library, journals
subscribed to and addition, if any, in the last
quarle~
B
p.
The institution shall be free to post additional
relevant information, if it so desires.
(iii)
The institution shall submit FDR of Rs.500 Lakhs c
towards Endowment Fund and Rs.300 Lakhs
towards reserve fund in the joint name of authorised
representative of the management and the
Regional Director, WRC, NCTE and the same shall
be maintained perpetually by way of renewal of 0
FDR's at the intervals of every five years. The FDRs
submitted by the institution are returned herewith for
conversion/renewal (this time to be added in case
FDRs are not in the office).
4. Any wrong or incomplete information on website shall
E
render the institution liable for withdrawal of recognition,
under the Act of NCTE.
5. Admission should not be made until formal recognition
order under Clause 7(11) of the NCTE (Recognition,
F
Norms and Procedures) Regulation, 2009 is issued by
Western Regional Committee, NCTE and affiliation is
obtained from the University/examining body concerned.
6. You are advised to comply the above requirement
before formal recognition is considered under regulation
G
7(11) of NCTE (Recognition, Norms and Procedures)
Regulation, 2009 under section 14(3)(a) of the Act."
[emphasis supplied]
H
934
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 10 S.C.R.
A
11. Be it noted, in the meantime the respondent had filed
Contempt Petition No. 677 of 2011 for non-compliance of order
dated 28. 7.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 4541 of 2011. On
28.9.2011 a submission was put forth that as the court had
decided to grant recognition to the respondent-institution, an
B interim direction should be issued to admit the students for
D.Ed. course because after 30.9.2011 it would not be able to
admit the students. The High Court, dealing with the said
submission, opined as follows: -
c
D
"In our opinion, no such interim direction can be issued in
favour of the petitioner vide clause 3 of the letter, the
petitioner has been directed to submit certain information
and documents and that has to be verified by the NCTE.
Even apart, in a contempt matter, by way of interim
direction, a relief could not be granted. However, we
observe that if the petitioner is eligible, the authority shall
consider the case of the petitioner on 30th September,
2011."
12. It is worthy to note that the WRC was to file the reply
E within three weeks. During the pendency of the contempt
petition, the respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 6674 of
2011 for grant of recognition for academic session 2011-12
for D.El.Ed. course. The High Court, vide order dated
30.9.2011, directed the Regional Director of the· WRC to
F remain present and explain as to why the decision had not been
taken in regard to grant of recognition of the respondent
institution. As is perceived, the WRC vide order dated
27.10.2011 issued an order of recognition. The relevant portion
of the same is reproduced hereinbelow: -
G
"4.
.. ..... the institution is required to comply with all postrecognition conditions enumerated from clause 8 (11) to
Clause 8(16) of NCTE (Recognition, Norms and
Procedures) Regulations 2009.
H
6. The institution shall make admission only after it
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.
935
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
obtains affiliation from the examining body in terms of A
clause 8(12) of the NCTE (Recognition Norms and
Procedures) Regulation, 2009 for the academic session·
7.
The institution/permission will operate for 2012-13
8
only if the requirement of 200 teaching days in the session
is fulfilled as per calendar of the university/affiliating body."
[emphasis supplied]
13. Being grieved by the aforesaid order the respondent c
preferred Writ Petition No. 7664 of 2011 with a prayer to
command the NCTE to grant recognition from the academic
session 2011-12 for D.El.Ed. course or to treat the recognition
dated 27.10.2011 for the academic session 2011-12 instead
of 2012-13. The High Court dealt with the said writ petition
0
along with the contempt petition and, after referring to its earlier
order passed in Writ Petition No. 4541 of 2011, the chronology
of events, the issue of "letter of intent" and eventual grant of
recognition, concluded as under: -
"8. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the petitioner
E
is entitled to have recognition for the academic session
2011-12 also because the case of the petitioner was
pending before the Western Regional Committee and in
pursuance to the directions of the Court dated 28.07.2010
passed in writ petition No. 4541/2010, it was obligatory
F
on the part of the respondents to include the claim of the
petitioner for recognition from the academic session 201112 also. In our opinion, the respondents have deliberately
not included the same due to pendency of the Contempt
F'>roceeding and other proceedings."
G
14. After so stating the Bench disposed of the contempt
petition and the writ petition by directing that in the recognition
order dated 27 .10.2011 it shall be added that the institution was
entitled for recognition for the D.El.Ed. course with an annual
H
936
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 10 S.C.R.
A intake of 50 students for academic session 2011-12 also. The
said order is the subject-matter of assail in this appeal.
15. The thrust of the matter is whether the High Court by
the impugned order passed on 7.12.2011 could have issued
8
a direction as has been stated hereinabove.
16. It is submitted by Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel
for the appellants that the order of recognition passed in favour
of the respondent was conditional and there was a clear
stipulation that admission should not be made until formal
C recognition under clause 7(11) of the 2009 regulations is
issued by the WRC and affiliation is obtained from the
University/examining body. That apart, the order of recognition
dated 27.10.2011 clearly laid a postulate that the institution shall
make admission only after it obtains affiliation from the
D exafnining body in terms of clause 8(12) of 2009 Regulations
for the academic session and, therefore, the High Court has
fallen into error by holding that it was obligatory on the part of
the NCTE to include the aim of the respondent for recognition
for the academic session 2011-12 as the same was not
E deliberately done. The learned counsel would submit the
direction given by the High Court that the institution was entitled
for recognition with annual intake of 50 students for academic
session of 2011-12 also is legally impermissible inasmuch as
the institution had not fulfilled the NCTE norms and further the
F recognition could not have been made retrospectively effective.
17. Mr. Varun Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, per contra, would contend that the WRC had
acted mala fide in constituting the inspection team and after
the High Court quashed the same it was obligatory on its part
G to confer recognition without any delay. It is canvassed by him
that the appellant under the circumstances was compelled to
admit the students and, therefore, the students who have been
admitted for the academic session 2010-11 should be allowed
to undertake the examinations in respect of added intake seats
H as directed by the High Court. It is vehemently proponed by him
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.
937
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
that the educational institutions cannot remain at the total mercy
A
of the WRC and such an attitude on the part of the WRC is likely
to lead to anarchy and a state of uncertainty which would
corrode the financial backbone of the educational societies that
are devoted to imparting education. It is also urged by him that
such a situation would smother the legitimate expectations of
B
the students.
18. Mrs. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No. 2, M.P. Board of Secondary Education, has
contended that it is obligatory on the part of the Board to verify
C
whether an educational institution has obtained recognition
from the NCTE and affiliation from the Board and then only the
said institution can admit the students, but in the case at hand
as the respondent No. 1 has admitted the students without
recognition and affiliation, they cannot be permitted to appear
in the examination and conferment of such privilege would
D
destroy the fundamental fibre of the education system.
19. At this juncture, we may fruitfully refer to Section 14 of
the 1993 Act which deals with recognition of institutions offering
course or training in teacher education. It reads as follows: -
E
"14. Recognition of institutions offering course or
training in teacher education. - (1) Every institution
offering or intending to offer a course or training in teache;
education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of
recognition under this Act, make an application to the
F
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
G
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.
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
938
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 10 S.C.R.
(2) The fee to be paid along with the application under subsection (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 fulfills 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 institution concerned 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
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.
939
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
teacher education from the end of the academic session
A
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) -
B
(a)
grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition
has been granted; or
(b)
cancel the affiliation of the institution, where
recognition has been refused."
C
20. Section 32 of the Act empowers the council to make
regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and
rules framed thereunder generally to carry out under the
provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2)(d) provides for the norms, o
guidelines and standards in respect of certain categories of
employees who are to be employed in the institution. The said
provision reads as follows:-
"(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of
E
the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all
or any of the following matters, namely-
{a)
{b)
{c)
{cf)
the norms, guidelines and standards in respect ofF
(1)
the minimum qualifications for a person to be
G
employed as a teacher under clause (cf) of Section
(it)
12;
the specified category of courses or training in
teacher education under clause (e) of Section 12;
H
A
B
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 10 S.C.R.
(iit)
starting of new courses or training in recognised
institutions under clause (f) of Section 12;
(iv)
standards in respect of examinations leading to
teacher education qualifications referred to in
clause (g) of Section 12;
(v)
the tuition fees and other fees chargeable by
institution under clause (h) of Section 12;
(v1)
the schemes for various levels of teachers
c
education, and identification of institutions for
offering teacher development programmes under
clause (~ of Section 12;"
21. It is apt to note that in exercise of the aforesaid power,
the NCTE has, from time to time, framed certain regulations.
D Initially, regulations were framed in the year 1995. Thereafter
in 2002, 2005, 2007, and the latest one in 2009 have been
framed.
22. The lis in the present case is governed by 2009
E Regulations. Clause 5(5) of 2009 Regulations provides as
follows: -
F
"5(5) All applications received on-line on or before the 31st
day of the October of the year shall be processed for the
next academic session and final decision, either
recognition granted or refused, shall be communicated to
the applicant on or before the 15th day of May of the
succeeding year."
23. On a perusal of the said Regulation, it is clear as noon
G day that recognition can only be granted for the next academic
session.