http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1776 of 2005

PETITIONER: Krishnasamy Reddiar Educational Trust            

RESPONDENT: Member Secy., National Council for Teachers Education & Anr.                     

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/03/2005

BENCH: Ruma Pal & C.K. Thakker

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (c) No. 2911/2005)                          WITH

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1777 2005 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (c) No. 3290/2005)   

Dr. Anbu Paul College of Education              \005 Appellant                                      Versus

Member Secretary, National Council for Teachers Education & Anr.                   \005. Respondents

                       WITH

CIVIL APPEAL No.  1778          2005 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (c) No. 3203/2005)

Paul Teacher Training Institute                            \005. Appellant                                     Versus

Member Secretary, National Council  for Teachers Education & Anr.                   \005. Respondents

Thakker, J.

       Leave granted.

       In all these matters, orders passed by a Division Bench of the  High Court of Madras dated December 13, 2004, have been  challenged.  By the said orders,  the Division Bench allowed the  appeals filed by the respondent\026Regional Director, Southern  Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education,  (NCTE) Bangalore, set aside the orders passed by the learned Single  Judge and upheld the condition imposed on the appellants to start  new course in teacher-training education and admit students from the  academic year 2005-06.

       In all the three cases, the facts are more or less similar.  We,  therefore, refer to the first matter (Krishnasamy Reddiar Educational   Trust  vs.   Member   Secretary, N.C.T.E. & Anr., SLP (c) No. 2911 of  2005).  The appellant-trust made an application for recognition on  30th December, 2003 to the respondent for offering training in teacher  education and for starting Elementary Teachers Training Course for  the academic year 2004-2005.  The application was submitted on  December 30, 2004 in accordance with Section 14 of the National

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as  "the Act") and the National Council for Teacher Education (Form of  application for recognition, the time limit of submission of application,  determination of norms and standards for recognition of teacher  education programmes and permission to start new course or  training) Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ’the  Regulations").  The application, however was submitted without "No  Objection Certificate" ("NOC" for short) from the State Government.  It  was the case of the appellant that it applied for NOC on October 31,  2003.  The Government, however, did not take any decision for  sufficient long time.  Only on December 26, 2003 the decision was  taken by the Cabinet to grant NOC to the appellant.  NOC was,  however, actually granted as late as on January 30, 2004.   NOC was  submitted to the respondent on 2nd February, 2004, 31st January,  2004 and 1st February, 2004 being public holidays.  It is the case of  the appellant that no action was taken by the respondent on the  application of the appellant. The appellant, therefore, was constrained  to file a petition being Writ Petition No. 18107 of 2004 and an order  was passed by the High Court on 13th June, 2004 to carry out  inspection. Inspection was accordingly carried out on September 20,  2004 and by an order dated October 28, 2004, recognition was  granted by the respondent under Section 14 of the Act on the terms  and conditions mentioned in the said order.           Condition No.3 of the order is material and reads thus: "Further SRC also noted that the institution  has submitted the NOC belatedly on 2nd  February, 2004 i.e. after 31st December, 2003  the cut off date for submission of applications.  As per NCTE regulations, only completed  applications submitted before 31st December  will be considered for recognition for the  ensuing academic year.  The application of  Krishnasamy Teacher Training Institute was  incomplete as on 31st December 2003 and  hence recognition is being granted from the  session 2005-2006."     (emphasis supplied)                          Condition No.3 was clear and stated that the application of the  appellant institution for recognition was granted by NCTE from the  academic session 2005-06.  The appellant was aggrieved by the said  condition and hence it instituted a petition being Writ Petition No.  31913 of 2004.  The learned single Judge, by an order dated  November 08, 2004, allowed the petition and directed the respondent  to consider the claim of the appellant-petitioner ’positively’ and  ’permit’ the students in the academic year 2004-05 and thus allowed  the petition. For passing the said order, the learned single Judge  observed that the appellant-petitioner had submitted the application  prior to the cut-off date.  It was also observed that a similar order was  passed in Writ Petition No. 28280 of 2004 on 5th October, 2004 and  the respondents were directed to permit the students for the  academic year 2004-05 and against that order, no appeal had been  filed by the respondents.   

       Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single  Judge directing the NCTE to grant permission and admit students for  the academic year 2004-05, the NCTE filed an intra-court appeal,  being Writ Appeal No. 4112 of 2004.  The Division Bench allowed the  appeal, set aside the order of the learned single Judge and restored  the order passed by the respondent herein upholding the condition  No.3 extracted hereinabove.  In other words, the condition which was  imposed by the respondent on the appellant institution that the  recognition had been granted from the year 2005-06 has been  retained.   The Division Bench considered the relevant provisions of  the Act and the Regulations as amended from time to time.  The  Division Bench stated that the Regulations, 2002 were clear on the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

point.  As per Regulation 3 read with Appendices 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D,  applications were required to be made in the manner provided  therein.  Since the appellant and other institutions had not submitted  their applications within time and there was delay on their part in  making such applications, the condition imposed by the respondent  and  recognition granted for academic year 2005-06 could not be said  to be illegal, contrary to law or otherwise unlawful.   

        Dealing with the contention of the appellant that the action was  discriminatory inasmuch as in respect of other institutions, such  permission was granted from academic year 2004-05 and the orders  passed by the respondent granting permission from 2005-06 had  been set aside by the High Court and such condition was held invalid,  the Division Bench observed that when the action was legal and  valid, it could not be interfered with by the Court.  It also noted that  the validity of those orders was challenged by the NCTE and, hence,  the appellant could not claim benefit of Article 14 of the Constitution.   The appeal was accordingly allowed and the order passed by the  learned single Judge was set aside.  It is that order which is  challenged in the present appeal.           We may state that in the other two cases also, the facts are  almost similar.  In both the cases, orders have been passed by the  respondent granting recognition from 2005-06.  In both the cases, the  learned single Judge quashed the condition and directed the  respondent to grant permission from 2004-05.    In both the matters,  Writ Appeals  filed by the respondent herein were allowed and hence  both the institutes have also approached this Court.

       We have heard learned counsel for the parties.  The learned  counsel for the appellants contended that applications were made by  the appellants within the time prescribed.  It is no doubt true that the  applications were made without NOC from the State Government but  it was not the fault of the appellants in not submitting NOC. The  appellants did everything what was required to be done by them.    They had applied to the State Government for grant of NOC.  In the  first matter, such application was made on 31st October, 2003.  The  delay was on the part of the State Government in taking a decision  one way or the other.  It was also submitted that the Cabinet took a  decision on December 28, 2003 but NOC was granted on January  30, 2004. Immediately thereafter an action was taken by the appellant  in moving the respondent NCTE.  It was stated that NOC was granted  on January 30, 2004, and it was submitted to the respondent on 2nd  February, 2004.  31st January, 2004 and 1st February, 2004 were  public holidays and, therefore, NOC was submitted immediately on  the next working day.  It was, therefore, urged that the respondent  was wholly wrong in imposing condition No.3.  The counsel also  urged that submission of NOC is not strictly necessary.  Even if NOC  is not granted by the State Government, an application could be  made by the applicant and it was obligatory on NCTE to consider  such application and take appropriate decision on merits.  It was,  hence, not open to NCTE to insist on NOC by the State Government  or not to consider the application till then.  Finally, it was submitted  that in a similar situation, an order was passed by the respondent in  favour of one Sabari Education Society.  There also, NCTE granted  recognition from 2005-06 but a Writ Petition was filed against the said  condition and the petition was allowed and the institution was granted  recognition from 2004-05.  An appeal against said order was  dismissed by the Division Bench.  Even SLP (c) No. 2512 of 2005  has been dismissed by this Court recently on 14th February, 2005.  A  copy of the order passed by this Court has also been produced by the  appellant.  It was submitted that the case of the appellant is similar to  Sabari Education Society and similar treatment ought to have been  shown to the appellant institute.   By not doing so, the respondent has  acted arbitrarily as well as unreasonably.  The action is violative of  Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and deserves to be set aside.   

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

The appeal deserves to be allowed and the order passed by the  Division Bench is liable to be set aside restoring the order of learned  single Judge.  

        The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,  supported the order passed by the Division Bench. A counter affidavit  has been filed by the Regional Director of NCTE, Southern Region  Committee, Bangalore, wherein it was stated that considering the  application filed by the appellant and keeping in view the relevant  provisions of law, recognition had been granted to the appellant but  since the institution had submitted NOC belatedly on 2nd February,  2004 i.e. after 31st December, 2003 which was the cut-off date for  submission of application under the Regulations, the recognition was  granted  for the ensuing academic year 2005-06.  The action was  strictly in accordance with law and could not be objected.  It was also  submitted that the point has been finally concluded by a decision of  this Court in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute vs. Regional  Director, National Council for Teacher Education and Another, (2003)  3 SCC 321,  and as per the law  laid down, an  action has been  taken. The case of Sabari Education Society is sought to be  distinguished on the ground that in that case, as per the order of the  High Court, the inspection of the institution had ordered by the High  Court and the Division Bench extended the time to carry out  inspection on the request made by the counsel of NCTE and that  action was taken as "constructive res judicata" by the Court.   Regarding dismissal of SLP by this Court, it was submitted that such  dismissal would not constitute final decision on merits or the law  declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution.     Moreover, NCTE has filed application to recall/clarify the order  passed by this Court.  It was, therefore, submitted that there is no  substance in the appeal and since the order passed by the Division  Bench is in conformity with law, the appeals deserve to be dismissed.   

       Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the  opinion that orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of  Madras are in consonance with law and no interference is called for.   In our view, the learned counsel for the respondent is right in relying  on the decision of this Court in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute.   In that case, constitutional validity and vires of certain Regulations  were challenged.  The Court after considering the scheme of the Act  and the Regulations held that the power conferred on NCTE to  recognize institutions could not be held arbitrary or unchannelled.  It  also held that the guidelines issued to the State Government by  NCTE for issuance of NOC dealt with the matters to be taken into  consideration under Section 14(3) of the Act and they had direct  nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act.  The Court  also stated that refusal to grant NOC may entitle the institution to  challenge such decision but the provision as to requirement of NOC  would not vitiate the Regulations.   The Court emphasized that the  purpose of the Act is to achieve planned and coordinated  development of teacher education system and regulation and proper  maintenance of norms and standards in such education.  According  to the Court, the role of State Government is indeed important for  supplying the requisite data essential for formation of opinion by the  Regional Committee in taking an appropriate decision and no  objection can be taken against such action.            Referring to Sections 14, 15 and 32 of the Act and the  Regulations, the Court observed; "A perusal of the guidelines would show that while  considering an application for grant of an NOC the  State Government or the Union Territory has to  confine itself to the matters enumerated therein like  assessed need for trained teachers, preference to  such institutions which lay emphasis on preparation of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

teachers for subjects like Science, Mathematics,  English etc. for which trained teachers are in short  supply and institutions which propose to concern  themselves with new and emerging specialities like  computer education, use of electronic media etc. and  also for speciality education for the disabled and  vocational education etc.  It also lays emphasis on  establishment of institutions in tribal and hilly regions  which find it difficult to get qualified and trained  teachers and locations which have catchment area in  terms of schools of different levels where student  teachers can be exposed to demonstration lessons  and can undertake practice teaching.  Para 8 of the  guidelines deals with financial resources,  accommodation, library and other infrastructure of the  institution which is desirous of starting a course of  training and teacher education.  The guidelines clearly  pertain to the matters enumerated in sub-section (3)  of Section 14 of the Act which have to be taken into  consideration by the Regional Committee while  considering the application for granting recognition to  an institution which wants to start a course for training  in teacher education.  The guidelines have also direct  nexus to the object of the Act, namely, planned and  coordinated developments of teach education system  and proper maintenance of norms and standards.  It  cannot, therefore, be urged that the power conferred  on the State Government or Union Territory while  considering an application for grant of an NOC, is an  arbitrary or unchannelled power.  The State Government  or the Union Territory has to necessarily confine itself  to the guidelines issued by the Council while  considering the application for grant of an NOC.  In  case the State Government does not take into  consideration the relevant factors enumerated in sub- section (3) of Section 14 of the Act and the guidelines  issued by the Council or takes into consideration  factors which are not relevant and rejects the  application for grant of an NOC, it will be open to the  institution concerned to challenge the same in  accordance with law.  But, that by itself, cannot be a  ground to hold that the Regulations which require an  NOC from the State Government or the Union  Territory are ultra vires or invalid."

       Strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the  appellant on the following observations;  "Regulation 6(ii) of these Regulations provides that  the endorsement of the State Government/Union  Territory Administration in regard to issue of NOC  will be considered by the Regional Committee  while taking a decision on the application for  recognition.  This provision shows that even if the  NOC is not granted by the State Government or  Union Territory concerned and the same is  refused, the entire matter will be examined by the  Regional Committee while taking a decision on the  application for recognition.  Therefore, the grant or  refusal of an NOC by the State Government or  Union Territory is not conclusive or binding and the  views expressed by the State Government will be  considered by the Regional Committee while  taking the decision on the application for grant of  recognition.  In view of these new Regulations the  challenge raised to the validity of Regulations 5(e)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

and (f) has been further whittled down.  The role of  the State Government is certainly important for  supplying the requisite date which is essential for  formation of opinion by the Regional Committee  while taking a decision under sub-section (3) of  Section 14 of the Act.  Therefore no exception can  be taken to such a course of action."         At the same time, however, the Court proceeded to state that  the State Government must take a decision on the application by an  institution for grant of NOC within a "reasonable time".  If the State  Government does not take a decision within reasonable time, it would  defeat the right of the institution.  The Court, in the light of the fact  that there was no provision in the Regulations regarding time-limit,   observed that it would be appropriate that the Council frames  regulations fixing the time limit within which such a decision is taken  by the State Government on the application moved by an institution  for grant of NOC.  When St. Johns Teachers Training Institute came  to be decided by this Court, there was no such provision and the  Court stated that till such regulations are made, the decision should  be taken by the State Government within four months from the date  of the application failing which it would be deemed that NOC had  been granted.          The learned counsel for the respondent stated that after the  above decision, the respondent considered the matter and issued a  notification on June 06, 2003.  In the notification, it was stated that in  exercise of powers conferred under Clauses (f) and (g) of sub-section  (2) of Section 32 of the Act,  NCTE has amended the Regulations  prescribing the time limit of submission of application, determination  of norms and standards for recognition of teacher education  programmes and permission to start new course or training.                   Regulation 6 was accordingly substituted.  Clause (ii) thereof  reads as under: "Every State Government/UT Administration shall  endeavour to dispose of the application of the  Institution seeking NOC for starting a course or  training in teacher education or seeking permission  to start a new course or training and/or increase in  intake, as expeditiously as possible, and shall  provide its NOC/endorsement within six months of  the last date of receipt of application for grant of  NOC fixed by the concerned State  Government/UT."

       Our attention was also invited by the learned counsel for the  respondent to a notification dated 1st January, 2004 and particularly,  Clauses (x) and (xi) which   have been inserted after Clause (ix) of  Regulation 6.    The amended part reads thus: \027 "(i)    In the NCTE (Form of application for  recognition, the time limit of submission of  application, determination of norms and standards  for recognition of teacher education programmes  and permission to start new course or training)  Regulations, 2002 dated 13th November, 2002 as  amended by Regulations dated 6th June, 2003  after sub-clause (ix) of Para 6 the following sub- clauses shall be added: (x)     The requirement of NOC shall not apply  to institutions already recognized by NCTE for  running a B.Ed. course and seeking  recognition to start a course or training in  Elementary Teacher Education or from an  existing elementary teacher education  institution seeking permission to increase in  intake in such a course for a period of three

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

years from the date of notification of these  regulations in the Official Gazette.

(xi)    The requirement of NOC shall not apply  to institution seeking recognition to start a  course or training in Pre-School Teacher  Education/Nursery Teacher Education or from  an existing institution seeking permission to  increase in intake in such a course, for a  period of three years from the date of  notification of these regulations in the Official  Gazette.

(ii)    In accordance with the revised provisions relating  to requirement of NOC prescribed at (i) above, the last  date for submission of application prescribed in para 7  of NCTE (Form of application for recognition, the time  limit of submission of application, determination of  norms and standards for recognition of teacher  education programmes and permission to start new  course or training) Regulations, 2002 dated 13th  November, 2002 shall be the 31st January, 2004 only  for the academic session 2004-2005."

It was submitted that in the present matters, all the appellants  were applying for the first time and as such they were required to  follow the Regulations in force, operative and applicable to fresh  applications.  In such cases, Notes (1) and (2) of Appendix 1B (List of  essential documents) will apply.   

Notes (1) and (2) read thus;

"(1) If the application is found incomplete i.e. with  all the essential documents, the institution may be  asked to make good deficiencies in the application  on or before the last date prescribed in the  regulations.

(2)  In the event when deficiencies in an application  get removed only after the last date, the application  of institution shall be carried forward by the  Regional Committee for consideration for the  subsequent academic year i.e. for the course that  would be offered one year later."

       In our view, the respondents are right in submitting that there  was delay on the part of the appellants.  In all the three cases,  applications were submitted without NOC from the State  Government.  It has come on record that NOC was applied belatedly.    The State Government could not be blamed for not taking a decision  on the applications of the appellants as under Regulation 6 as  amended in 2003, it was required to dispose of such applications  within six months of the last date of receipt of applications.  Even  prior to the amended Regulation 6, it was expected to take decision  within "reasonable time" (four months) as held in St. Johns Teacher  Training Institute.  As the appellants applied for NOC in the last week  of October, 2003, they cannot make complaint that the State  Government delayed the matter.  Admittedly, NOCs were submitted  to the respondent after the last date of application.  If in the above  facts and circumstances, recognition has been granted by the  respondent on October 28, 2004 by imposing a condition that it would  be operative from academic year 2005-06, it cannot be said that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

respondent had acted illegally, arbitrarily or otherwise unreasonably.   

       Regarding the order passed in Sabari Education   Society, apart from distinguishing features as pointed out by the  learned counsel for the respondent, a review application has also  been filed and is pending, as stated by the learned counsel for NCTE.   Moreover, once it is held that the action of the respondent in imposing  condition is legal and valid, even if an order is passed in favour of any  other institution, the appellant cannot invoke Article 14.  In our  considered opinion, that is not the sweep of Article 14 of the  Constitution.           For the foregoing reasons, all the three appeals deserve to be  dismissed and are accordingly dismissed, however without any order  as to costs.