# ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SANT DNY ANESHWAR SHIKSHAN SHASTRA MAHA VIDY ALAYA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2006] 3 S.C.R. 638
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2006-03-31
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1859 of2006
- **Bench:** Y.K. Sabharwal, C.K. Thakker, P.K. Balasubramany An
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/st-a-te-of-maharashtra-v-sant-dny-aneshwar-shikshan-shastra-maha-vidy-alaya-and-21144
- **Pages:** 51

## Headnote

National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993;
Section 14-lnstitution intending to offer a course or training in teacher
education-recognition, grant of-State Government taking a policy decision
not to grant 'No objection certificate' to any such intending institution--·
Held. the subject of planned and coordinated development of the teacherD education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper
maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher-education system and
matters connected therewith , fullv covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule
VII-not .open to the State legislature to encroach upon the said field as
Parliament alone could have exercised the power by making appropriate
law and, thus not open to State Government to refuse permission relying on
E a State Act or on 'policy consideration-Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII
of the Constitution of India.
Constitution of India 1950;
Article 19(1) Clause (g)-Right to practise any profession, or to carry
F on any occupation, trade or business subject to reasonable restrictions under
Article 19(6)-Applications made by colleges to NCTE under 1993 Act and
after complying with the provisions of the Act-Permission granted by NCTEState Government ciling a policy decision refi1sed to grant 'No obiection
certificate'-Held, the State thereafter could not have interfered with the said
G decision.
Article 21 A--Held, would cover primary as well as secondary education.
Maharashatra University Act 1994;
H
638
-
•
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA" SANT DNY ANESHWAR SHIKSHAN SHASTRA MAHAVIDYALAYA
63 9
Sections 82 and 83-applicability-grant of affiliation to an A
institution-Held, once recognition has been granted by NCTE under Section
14(6) of the Act, every University ('examining body') is obliged to and
sections 82 and 83 of the University Act do not apply to such cases-Section
14(6) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993.
The petitioner, a public trust, desired to impart education for B.ED. course. B
To meet the requirement of infrastructure, library, staff etc., it spent more than
rupees one crore. The petitioner then made an application to SNDT Women's
University, Mumbai on October 30, 2004 by paying the requisite affiliation fees.
A copy of the said application was forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Higher
and Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai. An application was also made by C
the petitioner to NCTE, Western Region Office, Bhopal on December 30, 2003
in the prescribed format for grant of permission to start B.ED. college for women
in accordance with the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Eduction
Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the National Council for
Teacher Education (Norms & Conditions for recognition of Bachelor ofElementary
Education) Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). The D
Expert Committee of NCTE visited the petitioner's campus on June 6, 2005 and
verified the adequacy of infrastructure, staff and other norms. The report was
submitted by the Committee to NCTE which approved and granted recognition
for B.Ed. College to be opened by the petitioner from academic year 2005-06 with
an intake capacity of 100 students. After receipt of the said letter, the petitioner E
applied to the Government of Maharashtra on July 4,2005 for grant of permission
to start the college and\or inclusion of the name of the college in the Central
Admission Process for the year 2005-06. The State Government neither acted
on the said letter nor even replied. Under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994
(hereinafter referred to as 'the University Act') only after permission from the
Government, B.Ed. College can be opened. Since the admission process was to be F
delayed and the petitioner had undertaken every exercise by getting necessary
permission from NCTE and had invested huge amount of more than one crore on
development, infrastructure and appointment of staff etc., it was constrained to
approach the Hig

## Text

_Characters 0–39,913 of 132,259. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39913 for what follows._

A
B
c
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA
v.
SANT DNY ANESHWAR SHIKSHAN SHASTRA
MAHA VIDY ALAYA AND ORS.
MARCH 31, 2006
[Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJ., C.K. THAKKER AND
P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.]
National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993;
Section 14-lnstitution intending to offer a course or training in teacher
education-recognition, grant of-State Government taking a policy decision
not to grant 'No objection certificate' to any such intending institution--·
Held. the subject of planned and coordinated development of the teacherD education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper
maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher-education system and
matters connected therewith , fullv covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule
VII-not .open to the State legislature to encroach upon the said field as
Parliament alone could have exercised the power by making appropriate
law and, thus not open to State Government to refuse permission relying on
E a State Act or on 'policy consideration-Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII
of the Constitution of India.
Constitution of India 1950;
Article 19(1) Clause (g)-Right to practise any profession, or to carry
F on any occupation, trade or business subject to reasonable restrictions under
Article 19(6)-Applications made by colleges to NCTE under 1993 Act and
after complying with the provisions of the Act-Permission granted by NCTEState Government ciling a policy decision refi1sed to grant 'No obiection
certificate'-Held, the State thereafter could not have interfered with the said
G decision.
Article 21 A--Held, would cover primary as well as secondary education.
Maharashatra University Act 1994;
H
638
-
•
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA" SANT DNY ANESHWAR SHIKSHAN SHASTRA MAHAVIDYALAYA
63 9
Sections 82 and 83-applicability-grant of affiliation to an A
institution-Held, once recognition has been granted by NCTE under Section
14(6) of the Act, every University ('examining body') is obliged to and
sections 82 and 83 of the University Act do not apply to such cases-Section
14(6) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993.
The petitioner, a public trust, desired to impart education for B.ED. course. B
To meet the requirement of infrastructure, library, staff etc., it spent more than
rupees one crore. The petitioner then made an application to SNDT Women's
University, Mumbai on October 30, 2004 by paying the requisite affiliation fees.
A copy of the said application was forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Higher
and Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai. An application was also made by C
the petitioner to NCTE, Western Region Office, Bhopal on December 30, 2003
in the prescribed format for grant of permission to start B.ED. college for women
in accordance with the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Eduction
Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the National Council for
Teacher Education (Norms & Conditions for recognition of Bachelor ofElementary
Education) Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). The D
Expert Committee of NCTE visited the petitioner's campus on June 6, 2005 and
verified the adequacy of infrastructure, staff and other norms. The report was
submitted by the Committee to NCTE which approved and granted recognition
for B.Ed. College to be opened by the petitioner from academic year 2005-06 with
an intake capacity of 100 students. After receipt of the said letter, the petitioner E
applied to the Government of Maharashtra on July 4,2005 for grant of permission
to start the college and\or inclusion of the name of the college in the Central
Admission Process for the year 2005-06. The State Government neither acted
on the said letter nor even replied. Under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994
(hereinafter referred to as 'the University Act') only after permission from the
Government, B.Ed. College can be opened. Since the admission process was to be F
delayed and the petitioner had undertaken every exercise by getting necessary
permission from NCTE and had invested huge amount of more than one crore on
development, infrastructure and appointment of staff etc., it was constrained to
approach the High Court by filing a petition for appropriate relief. An affidavit
was filed by the State authorities asserting that the petitioner had to obtain NOC G
from the State Government The State Government had an important role to play
in the process of grant of permission by NCTE. It was stated that the State
Government had been assigned an important task of development and improvement
of teacher's education and thus it was vitally interested in education and specially
in professional courses in the State. It was only the State Government which could
correctly assess and know the extent of requrirment of trained manpower and H
640
SCPREME COURT REPORTS
[2006] 3 S.C.R.
A supply of trained teachers keeping in view the requirements, change of occupation
and demand of such teachers. The input from the State Government through NOC
was thus vital for enabling NCTE to exercise its powers and discharge its
functions properly and without involvement of the State Government and
availability of necessary input by the State Government, NCTE could not grant
B permission. Being of the view that there were sufficient B.Ed. colleges and intake
capacity taking into account the need for teachers. A conscious decision was,
therefore, taken by the Cabinet Sub-Committee on December 28, 2004 not to
grant approval or issue NOC for starting any new institution or to increase intake
capacity of existing institutions imparting B.Ed. course for the year 2005-06. In
spite of the above decision, NCTE forwarded the recommendation for grant of
C permission in favour of certain institutions. But, as policy decision had been taken
by the State Government, the proposal of the petitioner institution for grant of
NOC was not forwarded to NCTE. The State also made a complainy in the affidavit
that NCET had not clarified in what circumstances it has issued permissions to
the petitioner and other institutions without NOC from the State Government It
was, therefore, prayed by the respondent State that its decision was a policy decision
D which was in consonance with law and the petition was liable to be dismissed. The
State had also challenged, by liling Writ Petition No. 6172 of 2005, the action of
NCTE of granting permission to open new B.Ed. college ignoring the policy
decision of the State dated December 28, 2004 praying that the action of NCTE
was illegal and unlawful and was liable to be set aside. The NCET also filed a
E counter before the High Court Relying on various provisions of the Act, NCTE
stated that necessary sanction had been granted any i'ICTE and the said decision
was legal, valid and in consonance with law. It was stated that since the final
authority for granting such permission was only NCTE under the Act, SNOT
University as well as the State Government ought to have respected the order
passed by the NCTE by taking consequential actions and that the decision of the
F State Government was not binding upon NCTE and accordingly NCTE had decided
to grant permission to open 16 new B. Ed. colleges.
The High Court, therefore, was called upon to consider the role played by
the State Government in the process of consideration of application by the
G institutions seeking recommendation of opening B.Ed. colleges by NCTE in the
light of the provisions of the Act in juxtaposition to the extent of trained manpower
required by the State and to take policy decision on the basis of output of teachers
by such colleges. The Court was also called upon to consider whether in absence
of any material being made available by the State Government to NCTE whether
the latter can process the application and take a decision contrary to the decision
H of the State Government. A question had also arisen as to whether the State
--
'
ST A TE OF MAH:\ RASHTRA 1•. SANT DNY ANtSHWAR SHIKSHAN SHASTRA MAHA. VIDYALA YA
64 J
Government can refuse permission to an institution which had been granted A
permission to start B.Ed. college by NCTE under the Act and whether policy
decision of the State Government not to grant NOC would bind NCTE in the light
of the provisions of the Act The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the
Institutions and dismissed the writ petition of the State Government Hence, these
appeals by the state.
B
The appellant\state contended that the policy decision taken by the State
Government was in consonance with law and could not have been ignored by NCTE.
It was also submitted that it was within the power and authority of the State to
take into account relevant and germane considerations. On a serious
consideration, the Cabinet Sub-Committee took a conscious decision that for the C
year 2005-06, no NOC would be granted to open new B.Ed. colleges. It was also
submitted that the Regulations framed and Guidelines issued by NCTE under
the Act empowered the State Government to consider certain matters. The legality
thereof came to be challenged before this Court in St John Teachers Training
Institute and they were held valid. When in exercise of the power conferred by D
NCTE on the State Government, an action was taken and decision has been arrived
at, it is neither open to NCTE nor to a college to question the legality thereof,
particularly when the State has taken into consideration planned and combined
development of teacher education in the State. It was also contended that the
provisions of the University Act and in particular Sections 82 and 83 would apply
when the State grants NOC and NCTE permits new B.Ed. college to be opened or E
allows increase in intake capacity and the university will act in accordance with
the decision of the State and NCTE. In the absence of grant of NOC, a college
cannot insist on implementation of provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of the
University Act merely on the basis that NCTE had granted permission under the
Act. It was finally submitted that even if this Court is of the view that all the F
submissions made by the State are ill-founded and the decision of the High Court
does not deserve interference, no permission may be granted to the colleges at
least for the year 2005-06 since minimum requirement is presence of 180 days
which would be impossible to comply with since B.Ed. Examination is scheduled
to be held in March - April 2006. It was stated that the course is of one year only G
after graduation and as such there is no supplementary additional examination
for B.Ed.
It was contended by the NCTE that it is the final authority and has primary
voice in establishing technical educational institutions. The Act has been enacted
by Parliament in exercise of power under Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII to the H
Constitution and the State has no power in such matters. It was also submitted
642
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(20061 3 S.C.R.
A that like the State, University has also no power, authority or jurisdiction to ignore
the decision taken by NCET or refuse to take action in pursuance of permission
granted by NCTE. Sub-section (6) of Section 14 of the Act expressly requires
university to act in accordance with the decision of NCTE and State Government
cannot direct the university nor can university overlook the statutory scheme. It
B was also submitted that the policy decision of the State Government dated 28th
December, 2004 was not legal and valid. Several aspects and relevant
considerations were not kept in mind while taking the said decision. In the
c
circumstances, NCTE was constrained to take an action in consonance with law.
A decision was taken by NCTE to grant permission to new B.Ed. colleges which
was legal and valid. Regarding Regulations and Guidelines framed by NCTE and
the role to be played by the State Government in such cases, it was submitted that
it is merely in the nature of supply of necessary data\ materials and is
'consultative' in character. As it may be difficult for NCTE to get necessary
information before power is exercised by NCTE one way or the other the State is
requested to furnish requisite details. That, however, does not mean that the State
D can refuse NOC after a decision has been taken by NCTE. Once the State is
consulted and it supplied and made available necessary particulars to NCTE as
required by it, the function of the State comes to an end. Thereafter it is only for
NCTE to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.
On behalf of the various colleges it was contended that the State has no
E locus standi to challenge the decision of NCTE. The State cannot be said to be
"person aggrieved" or "aggrieved party" so as to challenge the decision ofNCT.E.
If the decision is against the college, it is only the college which has. 'standing' to
impugn the said decision. It was also submitted that under the scheme of'the
Constitution, particularly Articles 245, 246, 248 and 254 read with Schedule
F VII thereof, only Parliament has power of co-ordination and determination of
standards in institutions for higher education or research, scientific and technical
institutions. State Legislatures have no authority to enact any law in the field
covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII. Obviously, therefore, State
Government has no authority to take a policy decision in respect of the subjects
G covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII for which a specific enactment has
been made by Parliament and under the said Act authority has been granted to
NCTE to take an action. As to Regulations and Guidelines, it was submitted that
under the Act power has been conferred on NCTE. It is, therefore, only NCTE,
which can consider the question and take appropriate decision under the Act and
it is not open to NCTE to make Regulations or frame Guidelines empowering the
H State Government to undertake such exercise: The Regulations framed or
....
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 11. SANT DNY ANESHW AR SHIKSHAN SHAS1RA MAHA VIDYALA YA
643
Guidelines made, therefore are not in consonance with the Act and there i5 A
abdication of power by NCTE in favour of State Government which is hit by the
doctrine of impermissible and excessive delegation. Regulations permitting such
excessive impermissible delegation must be declared inconsistent with the parent
Act as also ultra vires and unconstitutional. It was also submitted that so-called
policy decision of the State Government is arbitrary and unreasonabl~ and would B
be hit by Clause (g) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution which allows all citizens
to have the right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade
or business, otherwise legal and lawful. Article 19 (6) cannot be invoked by the
State as total prohibition to open B.Ed. college can never be said to be in the
interest of general public and would not fall within "reasonable restriction"
permissible under the said provision. It is also violative of Article 21A as inserted C
by the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002. Over and above
constitutional inhibitions, the order dated 28th December, 2004 is arbitrary and
unreasonable inasmuch as considerations which weighed with the State
Government relating to employment of B,Ed. teachers were totally irrelevant and
extraneous. Taking education and getting employment are two different things. D
The colleges are not claiming any grant for financial aid from the State, nor do
they give any assurance or guarantee to students admitted to B.Ed. college that
the State will give them employment. It is therefore not open to the State
Government to refuse to grant NOC because the State is not able to give
employment to teachers after they get B.Ed. degree. Thus the so-called policy E
decision of the State Government not to grant NOC to B.Ed colleges is totally
irrational. It was also submitted by the respondents that they had made huge
investments and if at this stage they will be refused permission, irreparable injury
and loss would be caused to them. Finally it was submitted that the decision of
NCTE is legal, lawful and in consonance with the provisions of the Act as also
consistent with the law laid down by this Court in several judgments. Once the F
action of NCTE is found to be lawful and the decision of the State Government
bad, no prejudice should be caused to the institutions.
Dismissing the appeals the Court
HELD: 1.1. So far as co-ordination and determination of standards in G
institutions for higher education or research, scientific and technical institutions
are concerned, the subject is exclusively covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule
VU to the Constitution and State has no power to encroach upon the legislative
power of Parliament It is only when the subject is covered by Entry 25 of List III
of Schedule VU to the Constitution that there is a concurrent power of Parliament H
as well as state Legislatures and appropriate Act can be by the State Legislature
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2006] 3 S.C.R.
A subject to limitations and restrictions under the Constitution. The National
Council of Teacher Education Act 1993 enacted by Parliament, provides for
establishment of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) with a view to
achieving planned and coordinated development of the teacher-education system
throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and
B standards in the teacher-education system and for matters connected therewith.
It is thus clear that the field is fuUy and completely occupied by an Act of Parliament
and covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII. It is, therefore not open to the
State Legislature to encroach upon the said field. Parliament alone could have
exercised the power by making appropriate law. In the circumstances it is not
open to State Government to refuse permission relying on a State Act or on 'policy
C consideration'. [677-C-G]
St. John Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, NC'TE & Anr.,
[2003] 3 SCC 321 : JT (2003) 2 SC 35; State ofTamilnadu & Anr. v. Adhiyaman
Educational & Research Institute & Ors., [1995] 4 SCC 104: JT (1995) 3 SC
D 136, Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, Kera/a State & Anr., [2000] 5 SCC
231: JT (2000) 5 SC 188 and UP. Stuart v. B.K. RoyChaudhwy, AIR (1939) Cal
628: 43 Cal W.N 913, relied upon.
E
Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal
Medical Educational & Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., [ 1996]
3 SCC 15: JT (1996) 2 SC 692, referred to.
1.2. In the case of every institution seeking recognition to start a course
or training in teacher education or an existing institution seeking permission to
F start a new course or training and/or increase in intake, the final authority lies
with NCTE and NCTE cannot be deprived of its authority or power in taking an
appropriate decision under the Act irrespective of absence of No, Objection
Certificate, by the State Government/Union Territory. Absence or non-production
of NOC by the Institution, therefore, was immaterial and irrelevant so far as the
power of NCTE is concerned. Therefore, it is neither open to the State Government
G nor to a University to consider the local conditions or apply 'State policy' to refuse
such permission. [678-F-G; 684-B[
H
Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh v. State of Maharashtra &
Ors., (198614 SCC 361, distinguished.
2.1. It is not necessary to enter into the larger question that it was open to
--
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA •·. SANT DNY ANESHWAR SHIKSHAN SHASTRA MAHA VIDY ALAYA
64 5
the respondents to challenge, for the first time, the constitutional validity of the A
regulations framed by NCTE, not challenged before the High Court, since they
succeeded before the High Court on other points, it was not necessary for them
to challenge the vires of Regulations but when the.State had approached this
Court, they can support the judgment on any ground available to them including
unconstitutionality of Regulations and Guidelines. [685-A-B]
3.1. Under clause (g) of article 19 (1), all citizens have the right to practise
any profession or to carry on any occupation trade or business, unless they are
restrained by imposing reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). In the instant
B
case, applications had been made by colleges to NCTE under 1993 Act and after
complying with the provisions of the Act, permission was granted by NCTE. The C.
State thereafter could not have interfered with the said decision. It is also clear
that Article 2IA would cover primary as well as secondary education and
petitioners could claim benefit of Part III of the Constitution as well.1685-E, F]
4.1. Since the order passed and action taken by NCTE cannot be termed
illegal or unlawful, it is not necessary to delve further into the contention of the D
respondents that they have spent huge amount and incurred substantial
expenditure on infrastructure, library, staff, etc. and after satisfying about the
necessary requirements oflaw, permission had been granted by NCTE, however
if the said action is set aside on the basis of the decision of the State Government,
irreparable loss will be caused to them. 1685-G; 686-AI
5.1. The observations of the High Court that the provisions of Sections 82
and 83 of the Maharashtra University Act are "null and void" could not be said
to be correct It appears that what the High Court.wanted to convey was that the
provisions of Sections 82 and 83 would not apply to an institution covered by 1993
Act As per the scheme of the Act, once recognition has been granted by NCTE
under Section 14(6) of the Act, every university 'examining body' is obliged to
grant affiliation to such institution and sections 82 and 83 of the University Act
do not apply to such cases. [686-D; 687-A]
6.1. Preliminary objection raised by the colleges that the State cannot be
E
F
said to be 'person aggrieved' and therefore, has no locus standi to challenge the G
decision of NCTE, not dealt with, since the matter was decided on merits.
7.1. It is not possible to grant the prayer of respondent-colleges to allow
them to admit students for the year 2005-06 as the academic year 2005-06 is
almost over and as such the order passed by NCTE would operate from the next
academic year, i.e. from the year 2006-07.1688-AJ
H
A
646
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2006) 3 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1859 of2006.
From the Judgment and Order of High Court of Bombay dated 28.9.2005
in W.P. No. 6172/2005.
WITH
B
Civil Appeal No. 1860 of2006.
T.R. Andhyarujina, Raju Ramachandran, Jaideep Gupta, Mukul Rohtagi,
R. Venkataramani. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Ms. Aprajita Singh, T. Mahipal,
Anantbhushan Kanade, Dharam Bir Raj Vohra, V.K. Rao, Ms. Madhu Sikri,
Sanjay Sen, Rana S. Biswas, M.P.S. Chauhan, Nitin Lalwani, Vishal Anand,
C Ms. Diya D. Disuza, Ms. Sarla Chandra, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Himanshu Gupta,
Brij Kishor Sah. Mansih Pitale, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Dhruv Mehta, Ms.
Jayashree Wad, Ashish Wad, Neeraj Kumar, Arvind Gupta for M/s. J.S. Wad ·
& Co., Sushi! Karanjkar, K.N. Rai, Vinay Navare. Naresh Kumar, M.D. Adkar,
Vijay Kumar, Vishwajit Singh, Nitin S. Tambwerkar, B.S. Sai, K. Rajeev, S. U.K.
D Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Ms. Pooja N. Gupta for Mis Lawyers Knit & Co.,
C.K. Thomas and Ms. Asha G. Nair for the appearing parties.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C.K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
The present appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed
by the High Court of judicature at Bombay, on September 28, 2005 in Writ
Petition Nos. 6172 of2005, 4769 of2005 and cognate matters. Writ Petition
No.4769 of 2005 was filed by Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra
Mahavidyalaya for an appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and
F setting aside the order dated December 28, 2004 passed by the State of
Maharashtra by which the petitioner was informed that the State of Maharashtra
had taken a policy decision not to grant 'No Objection Certificate' ('NOC' for
short) to any institution for starting new B.Ed. college for the academic year
2005-06. It was also decided to communicate the said policy decision to the
Maharashtra University stating that if necessity will arise in the next year,
G applications for the institutions would be considered at that time. A decision
was also taken to bring it to the notice of National Council for Teacher
Education, Bhopal ('NCTE' for short) that in the State of Maharashtra, there
was no need for new B.Ed. trained manpower and hence NCTE should not
directly consider any application for grant of permission to start B.Ed. college.
H In spite of the aforesaid policy decision by the State of Maharashtra, NCTE
-
-
-
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA' SANT ONYANESKWAR SHIKSHAN SHASTRA MAHAVIDYALAYA [lllAKKER J] 64 7
granted permission to the petitioner institute. The State hence challenged the A
said action by filing Writ Petition No. 6172 of 2005 contending that the
decision of NCTE ignoring the policy decision of the State Government dated
December 28, 2004 was not in consonance with law and was liable to be set
aside.
Both the petitions were heard together by a Division Bench of the B
High Court. By a common judgment, the High Court allowed the petition filed
by the institution, set aside the order passed by the State Government on
December 28, 2004 and issued direction to the State of Maharashtra as well
as Maharashtra University to take appropriate consequential actions in
accordance with law in the light of the decision taken by NCTE in favour of C
the institution permitting opening of a new B.Ed. college. Similar directions
were issued in favour of other colleges also.
To appreciate the contentions raised by the parties to the proceedings,
few relevant facts in Writ Petition No. 4 769 of 2005 may now be stated.
The petitioner is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public
Trusts Act, 1950 as also society registered under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860. It was the case of the petitioner that it was running a secondary
school at village Kondhapuri, Taluk Shirur, District Pune, having a strength
D
of about 150 students. The petitioner desired to impart education for B.Ed.
course. To meet with the requirement of infrastructure, library, staff etc., it E
spent more than rupees one crore. The petitioner then made an application
to SNOT Women's University, Mumbai on October 30, 2004 by paying the
requisite affiliation fees. A copy of the said application was forwarded to the
Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai. An
application was also made by the petitioner to NCTE, Western Region Office, F
Bhopal on December 31, 2003 in the prescribed fonnat for grant of permission
to start B.Ed. college for women in accordance with the provisions of the
National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act') ar.d the National Council for Teacher Education (Norn1s & Conditions
for recognition of Bachelor of Elementary Education) Regulations, 1995
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). The petitioner also deposited the G
original Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) of Rs.5 lacs towards Endowment Fund.
According to the petitioner, the University processed the application of
the petitioner for affiliation and forwarded it to the State Government. It was
averred in the petition that the application was recommended for the
establishment of the proposed B.Ed. college to be opened by the petitioner. H
648
SUPRkME COURT REPORTS
[2006J 3 S.C.R.
A NCTE, vide its letter dated February 24, 2005 asked the petitioner whether it
was ready for inspection as per the nonns prescribed by the NCTE. Since the
petitioner was ready for such inspection by the NCTE, the Expert Committee
of NCTE visited the petitioner's campus on June 6, 2005 and verified the
adequacy of infrastructure, staff and other norms. The report was submitted
B by the Committee to NCTE which approved and granted recognition for B.Ed.
college to be opened by the petitioner from academic year 2005-06 with an
intake capacity of I 00 students. After receipt of the said letter, the petitioner
applied to the Government of Maharashtra on July 4, 2005 for grant of
pennission to start the college and/or inclusion of the name of the college in
the Central Admission Process for the year 2005-06. According to the petitioner,
C the State Government neither acted on the said letter nor even replied. Under
the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
University Act'), only after pennission from the Government, B.Ed. college
can be opened. Since the admission process was to be delayed and the
petitioner had undertaken every exercise by getting necessary pennission
from NCTE and had invested huge amount of more than one crore on
D development, infrastructure and appointment of staff etc., it was constrained
to approach the High Court by filing a petition for appropriate relief.
An affidavit was filed on behalf of SNDT Women's University stating
therein that it did not recommend the case of the petitioner to the State as
E in tenns of the Prospective Plan for 2002-07, the district-wise allocation for
Pune was only one college. It was, therefore, not possible to recommend
opening of a new B.Ed. college by the petitioner.
An affidavit was also filed by the State authorities, asserting that the
petitioner had to obtain NOC from the State Government. According to the
F respondents 3 and 4, the State Government had an important role to play in
the process of grant of pennission by NCTE and such role has been recognized
by this Court in St. John Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director,
NCTE & Anr., [2003] 3 SCC 321 : JT (2003) 2 SC 35 . It was stated that the
State Government had been assigned an important task of development and
improvement of teacher's education and thus it was vitally interested in
G education and specially in professional courses in the State. It was only the
State Government which could correctly assess and know the extent of
requirement of trained manpower and supply of trained teachers keeping in
view the requirements, change of occupation and demand of such teachers.
The input from the State Government through NOC was thus vital for enabling
H NCTE to exercise its powers and discharge its functions properly and without
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA ,. SANT DNY ANESHWAR Sfl!KSHAN SHASTRA MAHA VIDYALA YA [THAKKER, J.) 64 9
involvement of the State Government and availability of necessary input by A
the State Government, NCTE could not grant pennission. It was then stated
that there were 216 B.Ed. colleges with an intake capacity of more than 20,000
students. Additionally, NCTE had sanctioned 40 new B.Ed. colleges on the
basis of NOC issued by the State Government prior to 2005-06. The State
Government had issued NOC to nearly 80 new institutions upto 2004-05. B
There was, thus, sufficient B.Ed. colleges and intake capacity taking into
account the need for teachers. A conscious decision was, therefore, taken by
the Cabinet Sub-Committee on December 28, 2004 not to grant approval or
issue NOC for starting any new institution or to increase intake capacity of
existing institutions imparting B.Ed. course for the year 2005-06. The said
decision of the Government was communicated to all the Universities on C
February 4, 2005 and the Universities were directed to communicate the
decision of the Government to institutions concerned. In spite of the above
decision, NCTE forwarded the recommendation for grant of penni;;sion in
favour of certain institutions. But, as policy decision had been taken by the
State Government, the proposal of the petitioner institution for grant of NOC
was not forwarded to NCTE. The State had also made a complaint in th~ D
affidavit that NCTE had not clarified in what circumstances it has issued
pennissions to the petitioner and other institutions without NOC· from the
State Government.
An additional affidavit was also filed reiterating the decision of the E
Cabinet Sub-Committee dated December 28, 2004. It was stated that it was
also decided to withdraw/cancel NOC which had been issued by the State
Government in favour of some institutions. Those institutions, therefore, filed
writ petitions and the Division Bench set aside the decision of the State
Government by granting liberty to the State to take appropriate action in
accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
The State Government, thereafter, afforded hearing to the institutions, but
again it was decided to withdraw/cancel NOC in view of the policy decision
of the Government. It was, therefore, prayed by the respondent State that its
decision was a policy decision which was in consonance with law and the
petition was liable to be dismissed.
By filing Writ Petition No. 6172 of 2005, the State had challenged the
action of NCTE of granting permission to open new B.Ed. college ignoring
the policy decision of the State dated December 28, 2004, praying that the
action of NCTE was illegal and unlawful and was liable to be set aside.
F
G
H
650
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2006] 3 S.C.R.
A
The NCTE also filed a counter before the High Court. Relying on
various provisions of the Act, NCTE stated that necessary sanction had been
granted by NCTE and the said decision was legal, valid and in consonance
with law. It was stated that since the final authority for granting such permission
was only NCTE under the Act, SNOT University as well as the State
Government ought to have respected the order passed by the NCTE by taking
B consequential actions. It was stated that the State Government never informed
NCTE about its general policy not to issue any NOC to new B.Ed. institution
for academic year 2005-06 in view of output of existing B.Ed. colleges. It was
further stated that NCTE considered the question but decided not to accept
the decision of the State Government for the reason that the State while taking
C such decision, did not consider the education policy of the Government of
India under Sarv Shikshu Abhiyan which required opening of large number
of primary schools and thereafter secondary schools. It also did not take into
account preferential needs of hilly and remote areas, requirement of teachers
for Science. Mathematics and English, need of non-formal education of adults,
disabled, tribals etc. and did not consider the need of trained teachers who
D do not seek employment in other institutions but wish to use the training in
self employment such as opening of coaching classes, etc.
In an additional affidavit. NCTE stated that in the 73rd meeting, the
agenda included consideration of letter of the State of Maharashtra dated
E May 7, 2005 in which it was stated that Government had decided not to issue
any NOC for starting new B.Ed. college for the academic year 2005-06. The
meeting was held between June 3 & 5, 2005 which was attended by the State
representative but as the agenda could not be completed, the meeting
continued on June 16 and 17 when State representative was not present. After
considering the policy and views of the Government, the Committee decided
F that the decision of the State Government was not binding upon NCTE and
accordingly NCTE had decided to grant permission to open 16 new B.Ed.
colleges.
G
The High Court, therefore, was called upon to consider the role played
by the State Government in the process of consideration of application by the
institutions seeking recommendation of opening B.Ed. colleges by NCTE in
the light of the provisions of the Act in juxtaposition to the extent of trained
manpower required by the State and to take policy decision on the basis of
output of teachers by such colleges. The Court was also called upon to
consider whether in the absence of any material being made available by the
H State Government to NCTE whether the latter can process the application and
-
STATE OF MAHARASHlllA' SANT DNYANESHWAR SHIKSHAN SHASTRA MAHAVIDYALAYA [THAKKER, J] 65 J
·take a decision contrary to the decision of the State Government. A question A
had also arisen as to whether the State Government can refuse permission to
an institution which had been granted permission to start B.Ed. college by
NCTE under the Act and whether policy decision of the State Government not
to grant NOC would bind NCTE in the light of the provisions of the Act.
The High Court considered the material provisions of the Act and the B
Regulations and the relevant decisions of this Court, particularly in State of
Tamilnadu & Anr. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute & Ors.,
[1995] 4 SCC 104: JT (1995) 3 SC 136, Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v.
Commissioner
&
Secretary,
Higher
Education
Department,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kera/a State & Anr., [2000] 5 SCC 231 : JT (2000) 5 SC C
l 18 and St. John's Teacher's Training Institute, referred to above.
The High Court held that in the light of the relevant provisions of the
Act as interpreted by this Court in various decisions, the appropriate authority
to take decision regarding opening of new colleges was NCTE and neither the
State Government nor the University can act contrary to the decision of D
NCTE. According to the High Court, under the Act, the only authority which
could take a decision regarding opening of new B.Ed. college or increase in
intake capacity was NCTE and such decision cannot be ignored either by the
State authorities or by the University. So far as the function of the State
Government was concerned, the High Court observed that it was in the nature
of supply of necessary data and materials so as to enable NCTE to undertake E
the process of coming to an appropriate decision but the State had no power
to decide that it had taken a policy decision not to grant permission to open
new B.Ed. college for a particular period. Such decision was not in accordance
with the provisions of the Act nor in consonance with law laid down by this
Court. Regarding role of the University, the High Court held that it was p
incumbent on the University to take an appropriate decision and consequential
action on the basis of decision ofNCTE and the provisions of the University
Act required the University to implement such decision. It was, therefore, not
open to the University to take any action overlooking the decision of NCTE
and relying on a decision of the State Government. In the light of the above
findings the High Court allowed the petition filed by the institutions and G
dismissed the writ petition of the State Government.
The High Court, in the operative part, observed as under:
"For the reasons stated in the judgment, we direct the Director of
Higher Education, Government of Maharashtra to forthwith include H
A
B
c
D
652
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2006] 3 S.C.R.
the name of the petitioner institute in the list of Central Admission
process for the year 2005-2006 B.Ed. Course consequent to the
petitioner being allowed to start B.Ed. college. The University
considering Section 14(6) of the National Council for Teaching
Education Act, 1993 to grant first time affiliation to the petitioner
college to enable the College to admit students. That affiliation would
be subject to the petitioner college fulfilling the requirements as required
by the University to grant first time affiliation in terms of the University
Act, Rules and Statute to the extent that has to be complied with. It
is made clear that those who have been admitted pursuant to the
Central Admission Process are not eligible to apply against the seats
now available and admissions already done will not be interfered with
and the new seats will be filled in from amongst the candidates still
on the merit list, by conducting a special round of admission.
Rule made absolute to that extent in Writ Petition No. 4769 of
2005.
Rule discharged in Writ Petition No.