# MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS

- **Citation:** [2012] 13 S.C.R. 810
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2012-12-13
- **Bench:** A.K. Patnaik, Swatanter Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/maa-vaishno-devi-mahila-mahavidyalaya-v-state-of-u-p-ors-28172
- **Pages:** 70

## Headnote

Education/Educational Institutions - Professional
educational institutions - Affiliation - Cut off date for affiliation
C fixed by Supreme Court in a judgment - Universities declining
to grant affiliation - Challenged by the institutions before High
Court as well as Supreme Cow1 by filing writ petitions - High
Court dismissed Writ Petitions on the ground that it had no
jurisdiction to extend the cut-off date provided in the judgment
o of Supreme Court - Held: The authorities were not wrong in
rejecting the applications for affiliation in view of the cut-off
date as fixed by Supreme Court - Grant of recognition by
NCTE under NCTE Act is the condition precedent for grant
of affiliation by the examining body/University - The
E concerned Department of the State or the affiliating body can
lay down guideline or policy only in conformity with the
directions issued by NCTE - The NCTE Act being the law
enacted by centre would be supreme and the state law must
give way in favour of central law to the extent of repugnancy -
F The conditions imposed by NCTE while granting recognition,
shall prevail and cannot be altered, re-examined or infringed
under the garb of state law - Operation of the University Act
would be enforceable in case of technical colleges only when
the condition prescribed by the University for grant and
G continuation of affiliation is in conformity with the norms and
guidelines prescribed by NCTE -Once the relevant Schedules
are prescribed under Regulations or judge-made law, no one
is entitled to carve out exceptions to the prescribed Schedules
- The defaulting body would be liable for the proceedings for
H
810
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v.
811
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
contempt of courts and for departmental disciplinary action -
A
There is some over-lapping and contradiction between the
dates and period stated under the Regulations inter se and
even with reference to judgments of the Court - In order to
avoid the ambiguity and confusion, fresh schedule is
prescribed, in relation to recognition and affiliation- Contempt
B
of Courts Act, 1971 - National Council for Teachers Education
Act, 1993 - ss. 14(1)(a) and 16 - NCTE (Form of application
for recognition, the time limit of submissions of application,
determination of norms and standards for recognition of
teacher education programmes and permission to start new c
course or training) Regulations, 2002 - National Council for
Teachers Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2005 - National Council for Teacher Education
(Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009 -
Constitution of India, 1950 - VII Schedule - List I Entry 66 and 0
List /II Entry 25.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 254, VII Schedule, List I
and List Ill - Where the field is covered by the Parliamentary
Law in terms of List I and List Ill, subject to the exceptions
stated in Art. 254, the law made by the State Legislature
E
would, to the extent of repugnancy would be void - The test of
repugnancylconflict is not restricted to the obedience of one
resulting in disobedience of other but even where result of one
would be in conflict with the other ..
F
The Supreme Court, in the case of *College of
Professional Education and Ors. vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh, recorded that for the academic year 2012-13
and subsequent academic years, the educational
institutions and the State Government arrived at a broad
G
consensus regarding the procedure and terms and
conditions of admission, recognition and affiliation. A
Schedule for admission was provided by the Court for
the academic year 2012-13. The court fixed a cut-off date
for affiliation. The colleges which were affiliated upto
H
812
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 13 S.C.R.
A 7.7.2011 alone were permitted to participate in the
counseling for the academic year 2011-12. For the next
consecutive academic years, the colleges which were
permitted to participate in the counseling, were the ones
which received affiliation on or before

## Text

_Characters 0–39,796 of 140,462. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39796 for what follows._

A
B
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 810
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 276 of 2012)
DECEMBER 13, 2012.
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions - Professional
educational institutions - Affiliation - Cut off date for affiliation
C fixed by Supreme Court in a judgment - Universities declining
to grant affiliation - Challenged by the institutions before High
Court as well as Supreme Cow1 by filing writ petitions - High
Court dismissed Writ Petitions on the ground that it had no
jurisdiction to extend the cut-off date provided in the judgment
o of Supreme Court - Held: The authorities were not wrong in
rejecting the applications for affiliation in view of the cut-off
date as fixed by Supreme Court - Grant of recognition by
NCTE under NCTE Act is the condition precedent for grant
of affiliation by the examining body/University - The
E concerned Department of the State or the affiliating body can
lay down guideline or policy only in conformity with the
directions issued by NCTE - The NCTE Act being the law
enacted by centre would be supreme and the state law must
give way in favour of central law to the extent of repugnancy -
F The conditions imposed by NCTE while granting recognition,
shall prevail and cannot be altered, re-examined or infringed
under the garb of state law - Operation of the University Act
would be enforceable in case of technical colleges only when
the condition prescribed by the University for grant and
G continuation of affiliation is in conformity with the norms and
guidelines prescribed by NCTE -Once the relevant Schedules
are prescribed under Regulations or judge-made law, no one
is entitled to carve out exceptions to the prescribed Schedules
- The defaulting body would be liable for the proceedings for
H
810
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v.
811
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
contempt of courts and for departmental disciplinary action -
A
There is some over-lapping and contradiction between the
dates and period stated under the Regulations inter se and
even with reference to judgments of the Court - In order to
avoid the ambiguity and confusion, fresh schedule is
prescribed, in relation to recognition and affiliation- Contempt
B
of Courts Act, 1971 - National Council for Teachers Education
Act, 1993 - ss. 14(1)(a) and 16 - NCTE (Form of application
for recognition, the time limit of submissions of application,
determination of norms and standards for recognition of
teacher education programmes and permission to start new c
course or training) Regulations, 2002 - National Council for
Teachers Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2005 - National Council for Teacher Education
(Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009 -
Constitution of India, 1950 - VII Schedule - List I Entry 66 and 0
List /II Entry 25.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 254, VII Schedule, List I
and List Ill - Where the field is covered by the Parliamentary
Law in terms of List I and List Ill, subject to the exceptions
stated in Art. 254, the law made by the State Legislature
E
would, to the extent of repugnancy would be void - The test of
repugnancylconflict is not restricted to the obedience of one
resulting in disobedience of other but even where result of one
would be in conflict with the other ..
F
The Supreme Court, in the case of *College of
Professional Education and Ors. vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh, recorded that for the academic year 2012-13
and subsequent academic years, the educational
institutions and the State Government arrived at a broad
G
consensus regarding the procedure and terms and
conditions of admission, recognition and affiliation. A
Schedule for admission was provided by the Court for
the academic year 2012-13. The court fixed a cut-off date
for affiliation. The colleges which were affiliated upto
H
812
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 13 S.C.R.
A 7.7.2011 alone were permitted to participate in the
counseling for the academic year 2011-12. For the next
consecutive academic years, the colleges which were
permitted to participate in the counseling, were the ones
which received affiliation on or before 10th May of that
B year.
Some Colleges of the State, which did not receive
affiliation from the Universities, filed writ petitions before
High Court, challenging the order of the Universities
declining to grant affiliation. The writ petitions were
C dismissed by High Court primarily on the ground that the
court had no jurisdiction to extend the cut-off date as
provided in the judgment of Supreme Court in the case
of *College of Professional Education. Appeals have
been filed challenging the judgment of High Court. Some
D institutions filed writ petitions before this Court,
challenging the order declining grant of affiliation.
E
Disposing of the appeals and the writ petitions, the
Court
HELD: 1.1. The National Council for Teachers
. Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act) is a special act enacted
to cover a particular field, i.e. teacher training education
and, thus, has to receive precedence over other laws in
relation to that field. No institution or body is empowered
F to grant recognition to any institution under the NCTE Act
or any other law for the time being in force, except the
NCTE itself. Grant of recognition by the Council is a
condition precedent to grant of affiliation by the examining
body to an institute. [Para 41] [849-G-H; 850-A]
G
1.2. The non-obstante language of Section 16 of the
NCTE Act requires the affiliating body to grant affiliation
only after recognition or permission has been granted by
the NCTE. The provisions of Section 16 give complete
H supremacy to the expert body/NCTE in relation to grant
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v.
813
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
of recognition. In fact, it renders the role of other bodies
A
consequential upon grant and/or refusal of recognition.
When the NCTE is called upon to consider an application
for grant of recognition, it has to consider all the aspects
in terms of Section 14(1 )(a) of the NCTE Act. The
amplitude of this provision is very wide and hardly leaves
B
any matter relatable to an educational institution outside
its ambit. Thus, the NCTE is a supreme body and is
vested with wide powers to be exercised with the aid of
its expertise, in granting or refusing to grant recognition
to an educational institution. The NCTE is the paramount C
body for granting the approval/recognition not only for
commencing of fresh courses but even for increase in
intake, etc.
The Council has to ensure maintenance of
educational standards as well as strict adherence to the
prescribed parameters for imparting of such educational o
courses, including the infrastructure. The provision and
scheme of the NCTE Act is pari materia to that of the
Medical Council of India Act, 1956 and the All India
Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 etc. [Para 42)
[850-A-E]
E
1.3. The Council is the authority constituted under the
Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining
standards of education and judging upon the infrastructure and facilities available for imparting such
professional education. Its opinion is of utmost
F
importance and shall take precedence over the views of
the State as well as that of the University. The concerned
Department of the State and the affiliating University have
a role to play but it is limited in its application. They
cannot lay down any guideline or policy which would be
G
in conflict with the Central statute or the standards laid
down by the Central body. State can frame its policy for
admission to such professional courses but such policy
again has to be in conformity with the directives issued
by the Central body. [Para 47) [855-F-H; 856-A]
H
814
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 13 S.C.R.
A
State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. Adhiyaman Educational
and Research Institute and Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 104: 1995 (2)
SCR 1075; Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner
and Secretary toGovernment Higher Education Deptt.,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kera/a State and Anr. (2000) 5 SCC
B 231: 2000 (2) SCR 1234; Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar
Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 1:
2006 (3) SCR 638 - relied on.
1.4. In the present cases, while the State grants its
C approval, and University its affiliation, for increased intake
of seats or commencement of a new course/college, its
directions should not offend and be repugnant to what
has been laid down in the conditions for approval granted
by the Central authority or Council. What is most
important is that all these authorities have to work ad
D idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of
imparting of education properly and ensuring
maintenance of proper standards of education,
examination and infrastructure for betterment of
E
educational system. [Para 47) [856-A-C]
2.1. The NCTE Act was enacted by the Parliament
with reference to Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII of the
Constitution. There is no such specific power vested in
the State Legislature under List II of the Seventh
F Schedule. Entry 25 of List Ill of the Seventh Schedule is
the other Entry that provides the field for legislation both
to the State and the Centre, in relation to education,
including technical education, medical education and
Universities; vocational and technical training and labour.
G The field is primarily covered by the Union List and thus,
the State can exercise any legislative power under Entry
25, List Ill but such law cannot be repugnant to the
Central law. Wherever the State law is irreconcilable with
the Central law, the State Law must give way in favour
H of the Central law to the extent of repugnancy. This will
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v.
815
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
show the supremacy of the Central law in relation to A
professional education, including the teacher training
programmes. [Para 48) (856-0-G]
Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. v. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 120: 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR
B
249 - followed.
Medical Council of India v. State of Kamataka (1998) 6
SCC 131: 1998 (3) SCR 740; S. Satyapal Reddy v.
Government of A.P. (1994) 4 SCC 391; Jaya Goku/
Educational Trust v. Commissioner and Secretary to
C
Government Higher Education Deptt., Thiruvananthapuram,
Kera/a State and Anr. (2000) 5 SCC 231: 2000 (2) SCR
1234; State of Tamil Nadu
and Anr. v. Adhiyaman
Educational and Research Institute and Ors. (1995) 4 SCC
104: 1995 (2) SCR 1075; Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar D
Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 1:
2006 (3) SCR 638; Engineering Kamgar Union v. Electro
Steels Castings Ltd.and Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 36: 2004 (1)
Suppl. SCR 301- relied on.
2.2.
Wherever the field is covered by the
Parliamentary law in terms of List I and List Ill, the law
made by the State Legislature would, to the extent of
repugnancy, be void. Of course, there has to be a direct
conflict between the laws. The direct conflict is not
necessarily to be restricted to the obedience of one
resulting in disobedience of other but even where the
result of one would be in conflict with the other. It is
difficult to state any one principle that would uniformly
E
F
be applicable to all cases of repugnancy. It will have to
be seen in the facts of each case while keeping in mind
G
the laws which are in conflict with each other. Where the
field is occupied by the Centre, subject to the exceptions
stated in Article 254, the State law would be void. [Para
53) (863-G-H; 864-A-B]
H
816
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 13 S.C.R.
A
2.3. In the present case, the provisions of the NCTE
B
Act is a Central legislation referable to Entry 66 of List I
of the Seventh Schedule. Thus, no law enacted by the
State, which is in conflict with the Central Law, can be
permitted to be operative. [Para 54] [864-C]
2.4. 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, after coming
into operation of the Central Act, the operation of the
University Act would be deemed to have become
C unenforceable in case of technical colleges. The .·
provisions of the Universities Act regarding affiliation of
technical colleges and conditions for grant of
continuation of such affiliation by university would
remain operative but the conditions that are prescribed
D by the university for grant and continuation of affiliation
must be in conformity with the norms and guidelines
prescribed by the NCTE. [Para 56) [864-F-H; 865-A]
2.5. Under Section 14 and particularly in terms of
E Section 14(3)(a) of the Act, the NCTE 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
F Act, the examining body shall grant affiliation to the
institute where recognition has been granted. Granting
recognition is the basic requirement for grant of affiliation.
It cannot be said that affiliation is insignificant or a mere
formality on the part of the examining body. It is the
G requirement of law that affiliation should be granted by
the affiliating body in accordance with the prescribed
procedure and upon proper application of mind.
Recognition and affiliation are expressions of distinct
meaning and consequences. The purpose of recognition
and affiliation is different. In the context of the Act,
H
MM VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v.
817
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
affiliation enables and permits an institution to send its
A
students to participate in public examinations conducted
by the examining body and secure the qualification in the
nature of degrees, diploma and certificates. On the other
hand, recognition is the licence to the institution to offer
a course or training in teaching education. The affiliating
B
body/examining body does not have any discretion to
refuse affiliation with reference to any of the factors which
have been considered by the NCTE while granting
recognition. [Para 57] (865-B-G]
Chairman, Bhartia Education Society v. State of C
Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 527: 2011 (2)
SCR 461 - relied on.
2.6. Once the affiliating body acts within the
fundamentals of Section 14 of the Act, possibility of a D
conflict can always be avoided. The fields which are
sought to be covered under the provisions of Section 37
of the Universities Act and the Statutes of various
universities are clearly common to the aspects which are
squarely covered by the specific language under the Act.
That being so, all State laws in regard to affiliation in so
far as they are covered by the Act must give way to the
operation of the provisions of the Act. The requirements
which have been examined and the conditions which
have been imposed by the NCTE shall prevail and cannot
be altered, re-examined or infringed under the garb of the
State Law. The affiliating/examining body and the State
Government must abide by the proficiency and command
E
F
of the NCTE's directions. Existence of building, library,
qualified staff, financial stability of the institution, G
accommodation, etc. are the subjects which are
specifically covered under Section 14(3)(b) of the Act.
Thus, they would not be open to re-examination by the
State and the University. If the recognition itself was
conditional and those conditions have not been satisfied,
in such circumstances, within the ambit and scope of H
818
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 13 S.C.R.
A Sections 46 and 16 of the Act, the affiliating body may not
give affiliation and inform the NCTE forthwith of the
shortcomings and non-compliance of the conditions. In
such situation, both the Central and the State body
should a.ct in tandem and, with due coordination, come
B to a final conclusion as to the steps which are required
to be taken in regard to both recognition and affiliation.
But certainly, the State Government and the University
cannot act in derogation to the NCTE. [Paras 59 and 61]
(866·0; 867-G-H; 868·A·E]
c
St. John Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director,
National Council for Teacher Education (2003) 3 SCC 321:
2003 (1) SCR 975 • relied on.
2.7. The State opinion, as contemplated under
D Section 37 of the University Act, to the extent it admits to
overreach, is reconcilable and its results are not in its
orientation to the directives of the NCTE are void and
inoperative to the extent they can be resolved in which
case clear precedence is to be given to the directives of
E the NCTE during such resolution. The opinion of the
State, therefore, has to be read and construed to mean
that it would keep the factors determined by the NCTE
intact and then examine the matter for grant of affiliation.
The role of the State Government is minimised at this
F stage which, in fact, is a second stage. It should primarily
be for the University to determine the grant or refusal of
affiliation and role of the State should be bare, minimum
non-interfering and non-infringing. [Para 62] (868-F-H;
869-A]
G
2.8. Once it grants recognition, then such grant
attains supremacy viz-a-viz the State Government as well
as the affiliating body. Normally, these questions cannot
be re-agitated at the time of grant of affiliation. Once the
University conducts inspection in terms of its Statutes or
H Act, without offending the provisions of the Act and
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v.
819
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
conditions of recognition, then the opinion of the State
A
Government at the second stage is a mere formality
unless there was a drastic and unacceptable mistake or
the entire process was vitiated by fraud or there was
patently eminent danger to life of the students working
in the school because of non-compliance of a
B
substantive condition imposed by either of the bodies. In
the normal circumstances, the role of the State is a very
formal one and the State is not expected to obstruct the
commencement of admission process and academic
courses once recognition is granted and affiliation is c
found to be acceptable. [Para 63] [869-D-G]
2.9. The exercise of discretion by the State
Government and affiliating body has to be within the
framework of the Act, the Regulations and conditions of
recognition. The Court stated that the State Government D
or the Union Territory has to necessarily confine itself to
the guidelines issued by the NCTE while considering
application for grant of 'No Objection Certificate'.
Minimization of the role of the State at the second stage
can also be justified on the ground that affiliation primarily
E
is a subject matter of the University which is responsible
for admission of the students laying down the criteria
thereof, holding of examinations and implementation of
the prescribed courses while maintaining the standards
of education as prescribed. [Para 64] [870-A-D]
F
St. John Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director,
National Council for Teacher Education (2003) 3 sec 321:
2003 (1) SCR 975 - relied on.
Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra
G
Mahavidyalaya and Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 1; Bhartia Education
Society v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (2011) 4 sec
527: 2011 (2) SCR 461 - referred to.
3.1.
Once the relevant Schedules have been
H
820
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 13 S.C.R.
A prescribed under the Regulations or under the Judge
made law, none, whosoever it be, is entitled to carve out
exceptions to the prescribed Schedule. Adherence to the
Schedule is the essence of granting admission in a fair
and transparent manner as well as to maintain the
B standards of education. The purpose of providing a time
schedule is to ensure that all concerned authorities act
within the stipulated time. The prescribed schedules
under the Regulations and the judgments must be strictly
adhered to without exceptions. None in the hierarchy of
c the State Government, University, NCTE or any other
authority or body involved in this process can breach the
Schedule for any direct or indirect reason. Anybody who
is found to be defaulting in this behalf is bound to render
himself or herself liable for initiation of proceedings under
0 the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as well
as for a disciplinary action in accordance with the orders
of the Court. Adherence to Schedule achieves the object
of the Act and its various aspects. Disobedience results
,
in unfair admissions, not commencing the courses within
the stipulated time and causing serious prejudice to the
E students of higher merit resulting in defeating the rule of
merit. [Paras 65, 66 and 67] [870-E-F; 871-A-C, F]
3.2. The Court adopts and reiterates the Schedule
stated by this Court in the case of *College of
F Professional Education in relation to admission as well
as recognition and affiliation. The process for grant of
recognition, affiliation and thereby sanctioning of
commencement of the courses in terms of the
Regulations and the orders of this Court gives an outer
G period of approximately 270 days, i.e. 9 months, from 1st
September to 10th May of the year immediately preceding
the concerned academic year.
Thus, for the entire
process to be within this framework, it must be completed
within the afore-stated period.
The process inter alia
H includes various steps including comments of the State,
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v.
821
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
inspection of the institution and compliance of the
A
various conditions afore-noted in the order of recognition
and affiliation by the affiliating body. [Paras 68 and 69]
[871-G; 872-A-C]
3.3. There appear to be some over-lapping periods
8
and even contradictions between the dates and periods
stated under the regulations inter se and even with
reference to the judgments of this Court prescribing the
Schedule. For example in terms of the judgment of this
Court in the case of *College of Professional Education
the last date for grant of affiliation is 10th May of the
C
concerned year, but as per Regulation 5.5 of the NCTE
. Regulations, 2009, the last date for grant of recognition is
15th May of the relevant year. Similarly, there is an overlap
between the period specified in Regulation 7.1 and that
under Regulation 7.2. Such overlapping is likely to cause
D
some confusion in the mind of the implementing authority
as well as the applicant.
Thus, it is necessary for this
Court to put to rest these avoidable events and
unnecessary controversies. Compelled with these
circumstances and to ensure that there exists no
E
ambiguity, uncertainty and confusion, the Court directs
and prescribes· a fresh schedule upon a cumulative
reading of the Regulations and judgments of this Court in
relation to recognition and affiliation. [Para 70] [872-0-H]
3.4. The schedule stated in the case of *College of
Professional Education and in this judgment in relation
to
admissions,
recognition,
affiliation
and
commencement of courses shall be strictly adhered to by
F
all concerned including the NCTE, the State Government G
and the University/examining body. In the event of
disobedience of schedule and/or any attempt to
overreach or circumvent the judgment of this Court and
the directions contained herein, the concerned person
shall render himself or herself liable for proceedings
H
822
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 13 S.C.R.
A under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and even for
departmental disciplinary action in accordance with law.
[Para 74] [878-F-H; 879-A]
3.5. The NCTE/ State Government/ Examining or
8 affiliating body are directed to consider the applications
and pass appropriate orders granting or refusing to grant
recognition/affiliation to the petitioner institutions within
three months from the date of the judgment. If the
institutions are aggrieved from the order passed by the
C authorities in terms of clause 'C', they will be at liberty to
challenge the same in accordance with law. The NCTE
shall circulate the copy of this judgment to all Regional
Committees, concerned State Governments and all
affiliating bodies and also put the some on its website for
information of all stakeholders and public at large. [Para
D 7 4] [879-B-D]
*College of Professional Education and Ors. vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh (2013) SCC 721 - relied on.
E
4.1. There is no fault with the view taken by the
authorities concerned in rejecting the application or not
granting application for affiliation on the ground that there
was a cut-off date and/or the conditions of
recommendation/affiliation had not been satisfied. 10th of
May has been provided as the cut-off date, after which
F no affiliation for the current academic year would be
granted. This, being the law stated by this Court, is
binding on all concerned, including any authority. The
authorities have rightly acted in declining to entertain and/
or refusing affiliation to the institutions being beyond the
G cut-off date.
Adherence to the schedule was the
obligation of the authorities and the institutions cannot
raise any grievance in that regard.
The said time
schedule must become operative in all respects and
nobody should be permitted to carve exceptions to this
H mandatory direction. [Para 71] [876-A-D]
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v.
823
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
4.2. The plea has been taken by the respondents
A
University/State that conditions of affiliation have not
been satisfied. It is not for this Court to examine the
compliance or breach of conditions and their extent in the
special leave petitions or writ petitions as the case may
be. The disputes are of very serious nature. They will
B
squarely fall beyond the ambit of appellate or writ
jurisdiction by this Court. This is for the specialised
bodies to examine the matters upon physical verification
and to proceed with the application of the institute in
accordance with law. [Para 72] [876-D-E, G~H; 877 ·A]
c
4.3. Vide order dated 26th July, 2012 a stay in regard
to counseling and admission was granted by this Court.
However, the stay was vacated by order dated 27th
September, 2012. In furtherance to the above order, the
admissions had been granted in the recognised and
D
affiliated institutes. The interim order dated 27th
September, 2012 is made absolute. In the colleges which
were neither recognised nor affiliated, whether or not
included in the list of counseling, no admissions were
given to the students. The petitioner/appellant colleges
E
fall in that category. No relief can be granted to them in
the present writ petitions and appeals except issuance of
certain directions. [Paras 73 and 74] [877-A-B; 878-D-E]
Case Law Reference:
1995 (2) SCR 1075
Relied on
Para 43, 51
2000 (2) SCR 1234
Relied on
Para 45, 51
2006 (3) SCR 638
Relied on
Para 46, 52,
56, 64
1998 (3) SCR 740
Relied on
Para 48
1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249 Followed
Para 49
(1994) 4 sec 391
Relied on
Para 50
F
G
H
824
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 13 S.C.R.
A
2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 301 Relied on
Para 52
Para 59
Para 70, 74
B
c
2003 (1) SCR 975
(2013) Vol. 2 sec 121
Relied on
Relied on
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
W.P (C) No. 276 of 2012
WITH
C.A. No. 9064/2012, 9065/2012, 9066/2012, 9067/2012,
9068/2012, 9069/2012, 9070/2012, 9071/2012, 9072/2012,
9073/2012, 9074/2012, 9075/2012, 9076/2012, 9078/2012,
9077/2012, 9062/2012, 9063/2012 W.P (C) No. 296 of 2012,
0 306 of 2012, 307 of 2012, 329 of 2012, 354 of 2012, 345 .of
2012, 346 of 2012, 347 of 2012, 349 of 2012, 350 of 2012,
354 of 2012, 395 of 2012, 389 of 2012, 397 of 2012.
Krishnan Venugopal, Jayant Bhushan, S.R. Singh, P.N.
Mishra, Pramod Swarup, Pooja Dhar, Udai U.S. Rathore,
E Gaurav Agrawal, Rajesh Srivastava, Meenesh Dubey, D.P.
Pande, S.R. Setia, Raghvendra Singh, Sanjay Sharawat, Aditya
Kant Sharma, Ritesh Agarwal, Aneesh Mittal, Rita Chaudhary, ·
Madhur Jain, Sunil Kumar Jain, D.N. Dubey, Avnish Singh,
Ujjawal Pandey, Sushant K. Yadav, Yash Pal Dhingra,
F Satyendra Kumar, Sunita Bhardwaj, Bijendra Singh, Shail
Kumar Dwivedi, Siddharth Krishna Dwivedi, C.D. Singh,
Ayesha Chaudhary, Amitesh Kumar, Ravi Kant, Gopal Singh,
Ameet Singh, Pareena Swarup, Sushma Verma, Mukul Singh,
Praveen Swarup and Vishwajit Singh for the appearing parties.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. Leave granted in all the
Special Leave Petitions.
2. In the case of College of Professional Education and
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v.
825
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Civil Appeal No.5914 of A
2011 decided on 22nd July, 2011], this Court recorded that for
the academic year 2012-2013 and subsequent academic
years, the institutions and the State Government have arrived
at a broad consensus regarding the procedure and terms and
conditions of admission, recognition and affiliation. The terms
B
and conditions which have been agreed and had received the
approval of the court were noticed in great detail in that
judgment.
For the academic year 2012-2013 and subsequent
years, the following schedule for admission was provided :
1.
Publication of Advertisement
01.02.2011
c
2.
Sale of Application Forms and their 10.02.2012 to
submission
10.03.2012
3.
Date of Entrance Examination
20.04.2012 to
25.04.2012
D
4.
Declaration of Result
25.05.2012 to
30.05.2012
5.
Commencement and completion of
01.06.2012 to
counseling
25.06.2012
E
6.
Last Date of Admissions after
28.06.2012
counselinQ
7.
Commencement of Academic
01.07.2012
Session
F
3. The Court further directed that for the academic year,
there would be only one counseling. It was to continue for a
period of 25 days and was to be conducted as per the
directions contained in the judgment. Having provided for the
various facets in relation to the manner, procedure and
G
methodology to be adopted for admissions, the court also
provided for the time by which affiliation should be granted to
the colleges for the relevant academic year. Clause Vl(b) of the
judgment which has bearing upon the matters in issue before
us reads as under:-
H
A
B
c
826
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012) 13 S.C.R.
"(b) After the counseling is over, the concerned University
will continue to allot the candidates from the above
mentioned waiting list against the vacant seats till all the
seats in the colleges are filled up. It is further submitted
that the organizing university will provide students only to
the existing B.Ed. College and all those B.Ed. Colleges
which will get affiliation upto dated 07.07.2011 will not be
considered for counseling to the year 2011-12 and for the
next consecutive years and onward the colleges which will
be get affiliated on or before.10th of May of that year,
would be considered for counseling."
4. As is clear, the Court had fixed a cut-off date for
affiliation. The colleges which were affiliated upto 7th July, 2011
only were permitted to participate in the counseling for the
academic year 2011-2012. For the next consecutive academic
D years, the colleges which were permitted to participate in the
counseling were the ones' which received affiliation on or before
10th May of that year. In other words, the colleges which did
not receive affiliation by the said cut-off date were not to be
E
included in the counseling.
5. Some of the colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh which
had not received affiliation filed writ petitions challenging the
order of the universities declining grant of affiliation to them.
These writ petitions came to be dismissed by different
judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
F Lucknow Bench, inter alia, but primarily on the ground that the
court had no jurisdiction to extend the cut-off date as provided
in the judgment of this Court in the case of College of
Professional Education (supra).
G
6. In 17 special leave petitions, different petitioners have
challenged the judgments of the concerned High Court before
this Court. The petitioners in 15 writ petitions have approached
this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
challenging the order of the university/authorities declining to
grant affiliation again in view of the cut-off date fixed by this
H Court.
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v.
827
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
7. These writ petitions and appeals have raised common
A
questions of law on somewhat different facts. Thus, we
propose to dispose of these writ petitions and appeals by this
common judgment. Before we dwell upon the real controversy
arising for consideration of the Court in the present case, it will
be necessary for the court to refer to the facts in some of the
B
writ petitions/appeals.
Facts
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 276 of 2012
8. It is the case of the petitioner that Maa Vaishno Devi
C
Shiksha Samiti, a society registered under the provisions of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 had been imparting education
in various disciplines as main object.
In furtherance to its
stated objects, the society opened Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila
Mahavidyalaya (for short, the "College") to conduct courses in
D
education (B.A., B.Ed.) in the year 2007. Initially, the college
started with B.A. course and was granted affiliation by Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohia Avadh University (for short, the 'University') in
accordance with law. Thereafter, the college intended to
conduct B.Ed course for which it applied for grant of affiliation
E
and recognition. to the respective authorities. On 24th
September, 2010, the National Council for Teacher Education
(for short "NCTE") granted recognition to the petitioner college
for conducting B.Ed. courses of secondary level of one year with
annual intake for 100 students from the academic session
2010-2011.
9. In furtherance to the request of the College, the
University conducted inspection of the College and thereupon
recommended its case to the State Government. On 6th July,
F
2011 the State Government granted permission to accord
G .
temporary affiliation to the petitioner to run B.Ed classes for
one year on self-finance basis for the academic year 20112012. Subsequently, on 22nd July, 2011, as already noticed,
the judgment of this Court came to be passed in the case of
College of Professional Education and Ors. (supra) fixing the
H
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 13 S.C.R.
A time schedule for grant of affiliation. A strict timeline was laid
down for application, examination, counseling and admissions
with the academic session to begin on 1st July, 2012.
10. Para VI of the judgment dated 22nd July, 2011 does
have an element of ambiguity. While noticing the submissions
B and passing appropriate directions, the court noticed "it is
further submitted that the organizing university will provide
students only to the existing B.Ed. College and all those B.Ed.
colleges which will get affiliation dated 7th July, 2011 will not
be considered for counseling to the year 2011-12 and for the
C next consecutive year and onward, the colleges which will get
affiliated on or before 10th of May of that year would be
considered for counseling ..... ".
It is obvious that there is
something amiss prior to the words 'will not' appearing
immediately after the date of 7th July, 2011. Obviously, what
D the court meant was that the colleges which are affiliated or
which will get affiliation upto 7th July, 2011 are the colleges to
which the organizing university will provide students, but other
colleges which get affiliation after 7th July, 2011 will not be
considered for counseling for the year 2011-2012.
E Furthermore, for subsequent academic years, the colleges to
which the students will be provided would be the colleges which
attain affiliation by 10th May of that year. That is the spirit of
the directions. Thus, we must read and construe the judgment
ifl that fashion.
F
11. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the University
granted temporary affiliation to the college for the academic
year 2011-12 on 27th August, 2011 with intake capacity of 100
seats. The petitioner college claims that it had got permanent
recognition from NCTE for B.Ed. courses. In face of this, the
G name of the petitioner college was inducted in the list of
colleges for which the counselling was held by the organizing
university for the academic year 2011-12. Since the petitioner
college had received temporary affiliation for B.Ed. classes
only for one year, it again approached the University and the
H State Government for grant of permanent affiliation for the
MM VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v.
829
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
subsequent academic years and completed all the formalities A
as well as requested the authorities to constitute an Inspection
Team as required under the law.
In the meanwhile, the
Department of Higher Education, State of Uttar Pradesh,
issued an office order dated 11th January, 2012 vide which the
time schedule for seeking affiliation as directed by the court
B
was fixed.
The last date for submission of proposal to the
concerned university was 10th March, 2012. The proposal
received was to be forwarded to the Government by the
University latest by 25th March, 2012 and the State
Government was required to grant approval by 10th April, 2012. c
This date of 10th April, 2012, in fact, stood extended upto 10th
May, 2012, the date fixed by this Court. The University
constituted a three member team to inspect the college which
submitted its report on 26th February, 2012. The Report is
stated to have been submitted finding that the petitioner was D
possessed of adequate building, infrastructure and funds for
running the B.Ed. course and recommended permanent
affiliation.
It is the case of the petitioner that all relevant
documents and fees for grant of permanent affiliation were
submitted to the University on 5th March, 2012, i.e., five days
E
prior to the last date for submission of proposal.
The
University took lot of time and finally on 10th April, 2012, it
informed the petitioner that some more documents were
required to be submitted. The petitioner submitted the required
documents on 11th April, 2012. This application was
forwarded by the University to the State Government only on
F
20th April, 2012 along with approval in Form 'A'.
For the
academic year 2012-13, the organizing university had held the
Joint Entrance Test for all UP colleges on 23rd April, 2012. The
result of the same was declared and admission and counseling
sessions were scheduled to be held between 7th June, 2012 G
to 22nd June, 2012.
The petitioner college seriously
apprehended that it may not be able to participate in the
counseling for the academic year 2012-2013 because of the
delay caused by the University and the State Government,
particularly keeping in view the cut-off date of 10th May, fixed
H
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 13 S.C.R.
A . by the Court.
Consequently, the petitioner along with others
filed writ petition being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2417(M/S) of
2012 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow
Bench. This Writ Petition came to be disposed of by the order
of the Court dated 9th May, 2012. The Court, while noticing
B the directions of this Court as contained in its order dated 22nd
July, 2011, directed the respondents to consider petitioner's
case on the basis of their eligibility as required for affiliation
and take decision while expressing the hope that the State
would do its best in the matter. The petitioner has contended
c that though a number of deficiencies were noticed in the other
colleges, yet most of the colleges were granted conditional
permission for affiliation giving time to remove the deficiencies
pointed out in the order. Unlike other colleges, the State
Government vide its Order dated 10th May, 2012, had rejected
0 the application of the petitioner and pointed out various
deficiencies.