REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.                      2010 ARISING OUT OF

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOs. 4854-4856 OF 2009

STATE OF U.P. & ORS. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

BHUPENDRA NATH TRIPATHI & ORS. … RESOPNDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.                      2010 ARISING OUT OF

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 11223 OF 2009

STATE OF U.P. & ORS. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

BHUPENDRA NATH TRIPATHI & ORS. … RESOPNDENTS

J U D G M E N T

B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  and  its  authorities  are  in  

appeal  before  us  challenging  the  correctness  of  the  

1

judgment rendered by a Full Bench of the High Court of  

Judicature at Allahabad whereby and whereunder the High  

Court  held  that  the  restriction  as  contained  in  the  

Government  Order  dated  10th July,  2007  limiting  the  

eligibility to apply for Special Basic Training Course 2007  

only to such of those candidates who have passed B.Ed.  

from the institutions recognized by the National Council  

for  Teacher  Education   (NCTE)  as  arbitrary  and  

unreasonable. The High Court held that the exclusion of  

candidates from the field of eligibility for the said course  

who have obtained B.Ed. degree prior to enforcement of  

National  Council  for  Teacher  Education  Act,  1993  (for  

short ‘the Act’) or after the enforcement of the Act during  

the  period  when  the  application  of  any  institution  or  

University  was  pending  consideration  is  arbitrary,  

unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the  

Constitution of India.

3. In  order  to  appreciate  as  to  whether  the  impugned  

judgment  rendered  by the  Full  Bench  suffers  from any  

2

infirmities  requiring  our  interference,  few relevant  facts  

may have to be noticed:

BACKGROUND FACTS

Although  appalling  and  almost  unbelievable,  but  the  

fact  remains  that  in  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh,  more  than  

60,000 posts of Assistant Teacher in primary institutions run  

by Uttar  Pradesh Basic  Shiksha Parishad are lying vacant  

and unfilled  for  a  long time for  whatever  be the reasons  

thereof. The appointment of teachers in primary institutions  

is governed and regulated by the statutory rules known as  

U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 framed  

by the Government of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of its power  

under U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. The rules provide that  

for appointment of Assistant Master and Assistant Mistress in  

Junior Basic Schools, one is required to possess a bachelor’s  

degree  from  a  University  established  by  law  in  India  

together with Basic Teacher’s Training Certificate (BTC) or  

any other training course recognized by the Government as  

equivalent thereto. The BTC course in the State of U.P. is  

3

imparted  by  District  Institute  of  Education  and  Training  

(DIET)  run by the State  in  different  Districts  with  limited  

intake capacity on account of which a large number of posts  

remain vacant as suitable candidates were not available for  

being appointed as Assistant Teachers.

4. It is under those circumstances, the State had formulated  

a scheme for the imparting of the Special BTC course to  

such of those candidates who were already holding the  

Degree of B.Ed. Such an exercise was undertaken in the  

year  1998,  2004  and  2007.  We  are  concerned  in  the  

present case with the Special Basic Training Course 2007.  

The State submitted proposals to the Regional Committee  

of  the  National  Council  for  Teacher  Education  seeking  

appropriate  permission  to  impart  Special  Basic  Training  

Course in recognized DIETs of U.P. to the candidates who  

are already holders of B.Ed. qualification. Such permission  

is  required  for  starting  any  new  course  or  training  in  

teacher education by any recognized institution under the  

provisions of the Act. The NCTE vide its order dated 27th  

4

June, 2007 granted permission for imparting Special BTC  

Course as requested by the State. The State Government  

issued an order specifying guidelines and conditions for  

imparting  Special  BTC  Course,  2007  which,  inter  alia,  

provide minimum educational qualification for Special BTC  

Course,  2007  as  Graduation  with  B.Ed.  from  any  

recognized college run by State/Central Government and  

approved by the NCTE under the provisions of the said  

Act.  In  pursuance  of  the  Government  Order  dated 10th  

July,  2007,  advertisement  was  issued  which  was  

published  in  various  newspapers  on  18th July,  2007  

inviting  applications  from  the  eligible  candidates  for  

Special BTC Course, 2007.

5. The  writ  petitioners  possess  B.Ed.  degrees  (Shiksha  

Shastri  Pariksha)  having  obtained  the  same  from  

institutions  affiliated  to  Sampurnand  Sanskrit  

Vishwavidyalaya,  Varanasi  and  from  Purvanchal  

Vishwavidyalaya, Jaunpur. They have passed their B.Ed.  

in different years between 1993 and 1998. Minor details,  

5

if  any,  with  regard  to  other  candidates  are  not  really  

material for our present purpose. Suffice it to note that all  

the writ petitioners submitted their applications to DIETs  

and were called for counselling in November, 2007. That a  

list was prepared and published revealing that they have  

been selected for counseling and after counselling, they  

were called for training and their names were accordingly  

included in the final selection list.

6. It is at this juncture, the controversy begins. Before the  

writ  petitioners  were  actually  sent  for  training,  the  

Director, State Council for Research and Training put the  

DIETs on notice  of  a  Division Bench judgment  in  Smt.  

Sunita Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. requiring all the  

Principals  of  DIETs  to  act  in  accordance  with  the  said  

Judgment.  This  was  followed  by  the  letters  issued  by  

DIETs duly intimating the writ petitioners that in the year  

when they have passed the B.Ed.,  the institutions from  

which  they  have  obtained  the  Degree  were  not  duly  

recognized by NCTE and therefore, they were not eligible  

6

and cannot  be  sent  for  Special  BTC Course.  The same  

were  challenged  by  the  writ  petitioners  on  various  

grounds.  The  writ  petition  was  dismissed  by  a  learned  

Single  Judge  declaring  that  it  was  always  open  to  the  

State Government to provide a further higher qualification  

for  admission  into  the  course  in  addition  to  the  

qualifications  which  have  been  duly  prescribed  by  the  

NCTE.  The  learned  Single  Judge  while  relying  on  

judgments of Division Bench in  Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs.  

State  of  U.P.  &  Ors. and  Sunita  Upadhyaya (supra)  

distinguished the judgment rendered by another Division  

Bench in Ekta Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.1.

7. Aggrieved  by  the  same,  the  writ  petitioners  preferred  

Special Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single  

Judge. The Division Bench noticed the apparent conflict  

between the decisions  rendered  by Division  Benches  in  

Sunita UPadhyaya and Sanjai Kumar. The Division Bench,  

after considering the issues raised in the appeal, referred  

the matter for consideration by a larger Bench.  That is  1 2006 (1) ESC 531

7

how the matter has been placed before the Full Bench of  

the High Court resulting in the impugned judgment.

8. The Full  Bench,  after  an  elaborate  consideration  of  the  

matter, held:

(a) The candidates who have B.Ed. degree obtained from an  

institution  or  University  during  the  period  when  the  

application of the institution or the University for grant of  

recognition  under  Section  14  of  the  National  Council  for  

Teacher Education Act,  1993 was pending, are eligible for  

Special BTC Course 2007 as laid down by the Division Bench  

in Ekta Shukla’s case (supra).

(b) The proviso to Section 14(1) recognizes continuance of  

the  course,  which  was  being  run  immediately  before  the  

appointed day provided application is submitted within the  

continuance of such course is deemed recognition of such  

course and degree awarded therein by express provisions of  

proviso  to  Section  14(1)  of  National  Council  for  Teacher  

Education Act, 1993.

8

(c)  The  exclusion  of  the  candidates  from  the  field  of  

eligibility for Special  BTC Course 2007 who have obtained  

B.Ed. degree prior to the enforcement of NCTE Act, 1993 or  

after the enforcement of the said Act during the period when  

the application of the institution or University was pending  

consideration  is  arbitrary,  unreasonable  and  violative  of  

Article 14 of the Constitution. The above two categories of  

candidates  are  also  eligible  to  participate  in  Special  BTC  

Course 2007.

9. The  conclusions  drawn  by  the  Full  Bench  are  seriously  

challenged  by  the  State  in  these  appeals  on  various  

grounds.

10.We have heard Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior advocate on  

behalf  of  the  State  and  M/s  A.M.  Singhvi  and  P.S.  

Narsimha, learned senior counsel for the respondents-writ  

petitioners.

RIGHT TO EDUCATION

11.  We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire  

issue that arises in this matter for our consideration. The  

9

directive  principle  contained  in  Article  45  has  made  a  

provision  for  free  and  compulsory  education  for  all  

children  upto  the  age  of  14  years  within  10  years  of  

promulgation of the Constitution of India but the nation  

could  not  achieve  this  goal  even  after  50  years  of  

adoption of the provision. The task of providing education  

to all children in this age group gained momentum after  

National  Policy  of  Education  (NPE)  was  announced  in  

1986. It was felt that though the Government of India in  

partnership with State Governments had made strenuous  

efforts  to  fulfill  the  mandate  and  though  significant  

improvements  were  seen  in  various  educational  

indicators,  the  ultimate  goal  of  providing  universal  and  

quality  education  still  remained  unfulfilled.  In  order  to  

fulfill that goal, it was felt that an explicit provision should  

be  made  in  the  Part  of  the  Constitution  relating  to  

Fundamental  Rights.  Right  to  Education  is  now  a  

guaranteed  fundamental  right  under  Article  21A.  It  

commands  that  the  State  shall  provide  free  and  

10

compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14  

years  in  such  manner  as  the  State  may,  by  law,  

determine.  The  State  as  at  present  is  under  the  

constitutional  obligation  to  provide  education  to  all  

children of the age of 6 to 14 years. The State by virtue of  

Article  21A  is  bound  to  provide  free  education,  create  

necessary infrastructure and effective machinery for the  

proper  implementation  of  the  right  and  meet  total  

expenditure  of  the  schools  to  that  extent.  Right  to  

Education guaranteed by Article 21A would remain illusory  

in  the absence of  State taking adequate steps to have  

required  number  of  schools  manned  by  efficient  and  

qualified teachers. Before teachers are allowed to teach  

the children, they are required to receive appropriate and  

adequate  training  from  a  duly  recognized  training  

institute. It has been observed by this Court : “Allowing  

ill-trained  teachers  coming  out  of  derecognized  or  

unrecognized  institutes  or  licensing  them  to  teach  the  

children  of  impressionable  age,  contrary  to  the  norms  

11

prescribed,  will  be  detrimental  to  the  interest  of  the  

nation itself in the sense that in the process of building a  

great  nation,  teachers  and  educational  institutions  also  

play vital role. In cases like these, interest of individuals  

cannot  be  placed  above  or  preferred  to  larger  public  

interest”  [See  L.  Muthukumar  Vs.  State  of  Tamil  

Nadu2]. Such is the importance of proper training to the  

teachers before they are allowed to teach the children of  

impressionable age. Part  of the mantra of  development  

economics  today  is  a  stress  on  universal  primary  

education, including specific emphasis on educating girls.  

Several  countries  have  shown  with  experience  that  

investing in  primary education has been a fundamental  

factor resulting in economic and social development. But  

in some countries including ours, it has been very difficult  

to achieve high enrollment rates, it is precisely for that  

reason and with a view to create a culture in which the  

expectation was that everyone went to school  and that  

the entitlement to free primary education was universal, a  2 (2000) 7 SCC 618

12

provision is made in Part III of the Constitution imposing  

an obligation on the State to provide free and compulsory  

education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years. The  

provision  intends  a  systemic  change  to  empower  the  

marginal and deprived sections of the society.

EFFORTS MADE BY THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

12. As  pointed  out  in  the  instant  case,  the  problem  

confronting  the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  with  respect  to  

imparting free and compulsory education appears to be a  

gigantic one. A scheme known as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan  

was  launched  by  the  Government  of  India  and  for  

universalization of education, time bound goals have been  

ascertained. In order to achieve those goals, the State of  

Uttar  Pradesh appointed 33,000 B.Ed.  graduates  in  the  

primary schools controlled by U.P. Basic Education after  

the  selection  and  successful  completion  of  six  months  

Special  BTC  Course.  The  State,  thereafter,  addressed  

NCTE  requesting  it  to  accord  necessary  

recognition/consent  to  conduct  and  to  select  the  

13

candidates for Special BTC Training 2006 as proposed by  

the State Government to fill the vacancies in Parshadiya  

School of Basic Education all over U.P. and to admit the  

B.Ed./L.T.B.P.Ed./C.P.Ed./D.P.Ed.  trained  candidates  in  

the training.  The NCTE, having considered the proposal  

submitted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh for Special  

BTC  Course  of  six  months  duration  granted  one  time  

approval  for  training  candidates  for  being appointed  as  

primary teachers who were already B.Ed. subject to the  

fulfillment of the following:

(a) The teachers are to be trained only in the DIETs  

recognized by NRC-NCTE.

(b) The SGERT to submit the date of commencement of  

the  course  along  with  the  list  of  the  recognized  

DIETs  where  the  proposed  training  is  to  be  

conducted.

(c) The quarterly progress report of the programme is  

to be submitted to NRC-NCTE.

14

(d) The curriculum as finalized in the meeting between  

the NCTE and the State Government of U.P. is to be  

followed for the programme.

This was followed by the guidelines, terms and conditions  

issued  by  the  Government  for  the  selection  process  and  

training of the selected candidates for Special BTC Training,  

2007 which, inter alia, provide Graduation as the minimum  

academic  eligibility  and they must  have passed the B.Ed.  

degree recognized by NCTE from the institutions/University  

established under law and recognized as regular candidate  

fulfilling  all  other  conditions.  After  completion  of  the  six  

months  training  of  all  the  candidates  of  the  concerned  

District,  a  formal  written  examination  would  be  held  and  

successful candidates would be eligible for appointment as  

Assistant Teacher in Parshadiya Primary Schools. That is the  

scheme in vogue.

13. The candidates in the present case were finally selected to  

undergo Special Basic Training course, 2007. Before they  

could  be  actually  sent  for  training,  the  Director,  State  

15

Council of Research and Training addressed DIETs in the  

State to follow the judgment in  Sunita Upadhyay which  

declared that so far as the BCT course is concerned, there  

is  a  specific  stipulation  in  the  advertisement  that  the  

candidates concerned to have the degree or diploma from  

the NCTE recognized institutions and since the candidates  

therein did not have the recognition of NCTE as on the  

date when they have obtained their B.Ed. and therefore,  

were not eligible to join the BTC course.

14. Before we proceed further,  one important factor that is  

required to be borne in mind in the present case is that on  

the date of notification all the colleges from which the writ  

petitioners  obtained  their  degrees  were  recognized  by  

NCTE.  We make it clear that the candidates securing the  

degrees from those institutions whose applications were  

ultimately rejected by NCTE stands entirely on different  

footing.  

15. The  real  question  that  falls  for  our  consideration  is  

whether  only  B.Ed.  candidates  who  have  obtained  this  

16

degree  after  grant  of  recognition  by  NCTE  or  those  

candidates  who  have  obtained  their  degree  when  the  

application of the institution for recognition was pending  

or  such  of  those  candidates  who  have  obtained  B.Ed.  

degree  prior  to  commencement  of  the  Act  on  1st July,  

1995  are  also  eligible  to  join  the  BTC  course.  On  an  

analysis  of  the  material  available  on  record  and  the  

submissions,  the  following  are  the  various  possible  

distinctions identified during the course of several levels  

of litigation concerning the issue :

(I) Degrees  obtained  from   recognised  institutions  

which  have  initiated  such  courses  after  the  

commencement of NCTE Act;  

(II) Degrees  obtained  from  institutions  after  the  

commencement of the Act during the pendency of  

applications  seeking  recognition  which   ultimately  

did not receive the recognition;  

17

(III) Degrees  obtained  from  institutions  during  the  

pendency of applications after which they have been  

recognized;  

(IV) Degrees  obtained  from  Universities  and  affiliated  

colleges thereof before the commencement of NCTE  

Act which have been granted recognition after the  

Act coming into force; and  

(V) Degrees  obtained  from  Universities  and  affiliated  

colleges before the commencement of the Act which  

have not been granted recognition.

SCHEME OF THE ACT  

16. The  NCTE  Act,  1993  is  an  Act  to  provide  for  the  

establishment of National  Council  for Teacher Education  

with  a  view  to  achieving  planned  and  coordinated  

development of the teacher education system throughout  

the country, for regularization and proper maintenance of  

norms and standards in the teacher education system and  

for matters connected therewith. The Act came into force  

with effect from July 1, 1995 the appointed date under  

18

Section 1 (3) of the Act.  Section 2(i) defines “recognized  

institution” which means an institution recognized by the  

Council  under Section 14. The said Section 14 which is  

relevant for our present purposes reads as under :       

Section 14 :    Recognition of institutions offering    course or training in teacher education :  

(1) Every institution offering or intending to offer  a  course  or  training  in  teacher  education  on  or  after  the  appointed  day,  may,  for  grant  of  recognition under this Act, make an application to  the Regional  Committee concerned in such form  and  in  such  manner  as  may  be  determined  by  regulations:  

Provided that  an institution offering  a course  or  training in teacher education immediately before  the appointed day,  shall  be  entitled  to  continue  such course or training for a period of six months,  if it has made an application for recognition within  the  said  period  and  until  the  disposal  of  the  application by the Regional Committee.  

(2) The fee to be paid along with the application  under  subsection  (1)  shall  be  such  as  may  be  prescribed.  

(3) On receipt of an application by the Regional  Committee from any institution under sub-section  (1),  and  after  obtaining  from  the  institution  concerned  such  other  particulars  as  it  may  consider necessary, it shall,-  

19

(a)  if  it  is  satisfied  that  such  institution  has  adequate  financial  resources,  accommodation,  library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils  such  other  conditions  required  for  proper  functioning  of  the  institution  for  a  course  or  training  in  teacher  education,  as  may  be  determined by regulations, pass an order granting  recognition  to  such  institution,  subject  to  such  conditions as may be determined by regulations;  or  

(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does  not fulfill the requirements laid down in sub-clause  (a),  pass  an  order  refusing  recognition  to  such  institution for reasons to, be recorded in writing:  

Provided that before passing an order under sub- clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a  reasonable  opportunity  to  the  concerned  institution for making a written representation.  

(4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to  an Institution for a course or training in teacher  education under sub-section (3) shall be published  in  the  Official  Gazette  and  communicated  In  writing  for  appropriate  action  to  such institution  and to the concerned examining body,  the local  authority or the State Government and the Central  Government.  

(5)  Every  institution,  in  respect  of  which  recognition has been refused shall discontinue the  course or training in teacher education from the  end  of  the  academic  session  next  following  the  date of  receipt  of  the order refusing recognition  passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3).  

(6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the  order under subsection (4),-  

20

(a)  grant  affiliation  to  the  institution,  where  recognition has been granted; or  

(b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where  recognition has been refused.

17. Section 16 of the Act mandates that the affiliating body to  

grant  affiliation only  after  the institution concerned has  

obtained  recognition  from  the  Regional  Committee  

concerned under Section 14 or permission for a course or  

training under Section 15.  Section 17 (3) declares that  

once  the  recognition  of  a  recognized  institution  is  

withdrawn  under  sub-section  (1),  such  institution  shall  

discontinue the course or training in teacher education,  

and the concerned University or the examining body shall  

cancel affiliation of the institution with effect from the end  

of  the  academic  session  next  following  the  date  of  

communication of the said order.

18. A fair reading and analysis of the scheme of the Act with  

respect to recognition of the institution imparting course  

or training in teacher education is an essential prelude to  

21

the  core  questions  involved.  On a  plain  reading  of  the  

provisions  it  is  evident  that  on  and  from  the  date  of  

enforcement  of  the  Act,  every  institution  offering  or  

intending  to  offer  the  course  or  training  in  teacher  

education,  was  required  to  make  application  to  the  

Regional Committee in such form and manner as may be  

determined by the regulations as provided in Section 14  

of the Act.  The proviso to Section 14(1) states that an  

institution  offering  a  course  or  training  in  teacher  

education immediately before the appointed  day, shall be  

entitled to continue such course or training for a period of  

six months if it has made an application for recognition  

within the said period and until disposal of the application  

by the  Regional  Committee.   What  happens  in  case of  

existing institution makes application seeking recognition  

within the prescribed time but no decision is taken by the  

Council  within  the period of  six  months?  Does  it  mean  

that the institution can impart training only for a period of  

six months and thereafter  close the institution? Section  

22

14(5)  states  that  every  institution,  in  respect  of  which  

recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course  

or  training  in  teacher  education  from  the  end  of  the  

academic session next following the date of receipt of the  

order refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-

section (3).

19. A  plain  reading  of  provisions  suggests  that  all  such  

institutions  offering  a  course  or  training  in  teacher  

education prior to the Act coming into force, are entitled  

to continue such course or training until the application is  

disposed of provided such an application has been made  

within  six  months  from  the  appointed  day.  The  

consequence of not being able to gain recognition is the  

discontinuance of the course.  Once an application seeking  

recognition  has  been  filed  by  the  institution  within  the  

prescribed period of six months the institution is entitled  

to  continue  offering  a  course  or  training  in  teacher  

education  until  the  disposal  of  the  application  by  the  

Regional Committee. Once the recognition is granted by  

23

the  Regional  Committee  to  the  institution  offering  a  

course or  training in  teacher  education,  the same shall  

relate back to the date of filing of application.  Section  

14(5)  read  with  Section  14(1)  enables  the  institution  

offering a course or training in teacher education on the  

appointed day to continue the course or training as the  

case  may  be  during  the  pendency  of  the  application  

seeking  recognition  and  even  in  case  of  refusal  of  

recognition, the course may have to be discontinued, only  

at the end of academic session.  The institution offering  

training  or     course  is  entitled  to  award  degree  or  

certificate as the case may be.

VIEW OF THE NCTE

20. The NCTE made its stand clear,  as is  evident from the  

impugned order that after the enforcement of NCTE Act,  

the existing institutions on the appointed day offering a  

course  or  training  in  teacher  education  are  entitled  to  

continue such course or training provided such institutions  

apply for the grant of recognition under Section 14(1) of  

24

the  Act  within  a  period  of  six  months  and  until  the  

disposal of their application by the Regional Committee.  

The  degrees  obtained  during  the  pendency  of  the  

application are valid and recognition of such institutions  

shall relate back to the date of application and all such  

institutions shall be deemed to have been recognized for  

all purposes in view of Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act. The  

NCTE reiterated its stand before us.

21. Prior to the enactment of NCTE Act, the degrees such as  

B.Ed. course for teacher education were being awarded by  

the Universities or by the recognized institutions by the  

University  Grants  Commission  or  by  such  bodies  as  

authorized  by  the  University  Grants  Commission.  It  is  

unreasonable to hold that all  those degrees granted by  

the Universities or the bodies authorized by the University  

Grants  Commission  as  the  case  may  be  were  of  sub-

standard  in  nature  in  comparison  to  those  degrees  

granted by the recognized institutions after the NCTE Act  

came into force. Such a view may amount to undermining  

25

the importance of the university education and the role  

played by the Universities in promoting the education and  

educational standards. Each of the Universities have their  

own systems and mechanism to grant  affiliation  to the  

institutions offering courses at the college/University level  

and grant of affiliation is never considered to be a matter  

of  course.  Universities  always  ensure  maintenance  of  

standards  and  degrees  awarded  only  after  successfully  

completing  the  prescribed  syllabi  and  the  examinations  

conducted  by  the  Universities.   The  NCTE  Act  in  no  

manner  makes  any  distinction  between  the  degrees  

granted  by  the  Universities  or  authorized  bodies  

recognized by the University Grants Commission prior to  

the enactment of the Act and the degrees granted by the  

recognized institutions after the Act has come into force.  

NCTE Act  provides for  the recognition of  the institution  

offering course or training in teacher education and does  

not speak about recognition of the degrees granted by the  

institution  prior  to  the  Act  coming  into  force.  Thus,  

26

degrees granted by the institutions already in existence  

offering a course or training in teacher education shall be  

deemed  to  be  at  par  with  the  degrees  or  certificates  

granted  by  the  recognized  institutions  after  the  

commencement of the Act provided those institutions in  

existence  offering  the  course  also  received  recognition  

under the Act.

22. In  our  considered  view  the  State  Government  cannot  

make any distinction between the degrees obtained from  

the existing institutions prior to the Act coming into force  

but received recognition after the commencement of the  

Act  and  the  degrees  obtained  from  the  recognized  

institutions after the Act coming into force. It is not shown  

how  such  a  classification  is  based  on  an  intelligible  

differentia and on a rational consideration and further how  

it bears a nexus to the purpose and object thereof. The  

impugned action of the State results in the classification  

or  division  of  members  of  a  homogeneous  group  and  

27

subjecting  them  to  differential  treatment  without  any  

rhyme or reason.

23. Learned senior counsel appearing for the State however  

submitted that the State which runs a training course with  

the  approval  of  NCTE  is  entitled  to  prescribe  the  

qualifications  for  candidates  seeking  admission  to  the  

course  so  long  as  the  qualifications  prescribed  are  not  

lower than those prescribed by or under the NCTE Act.  

The submission was that after the NCTE Act has come into  

force  the  State  is  justified  in  insisting  and  prescribing  

B.Ed.  qualification  from  only  such  of  those  institutions  

recognized by NCTE. Reliance has been placed upon the  

decisions of this court in  State of A.P. and Ors. Vs.  

Lavu  Narendranath  &  ors.  etc.3,  Dr.  Preeti  

Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.4 and State  

of T.N. & Anr. Vs. S.V. Bratheep (Minor) & Ors.5

24. There is no quarrel with the proposition that the State in  

its discretion is entitled to prescribe such qualifications as  

3 (1971) 3 SCR 699 4 (1999) 7 SCC 120 5 (2004) 4 SCC 513

28

it  may  consider  appropriate  for  candidates  seeking  

admission into BTC course so long as the qualifications so  

prescribed  are  not  lower  than  those  prescribed  by  or  

under  the  NCTE  Act.   The  State  can  always  prescribe  

higher  qualification,  but  the  argument  proceeds  on  the  

assumption  that  B.Ed.  qualification  obtained  from  only  

such of those institutions established and recognized by  

NCTE after the Act coming into force is higher or superior  

than the B.Ed. qualification obtained from the Universities  

or  affiliated  colleges  duly  recognized  by  the  University  

Grants  Commission  prior  to  the  Act  coming  into  force.  

What is the rational basis for such a presumption? None.  

This fact assumes significance particularly in the light of  

the fact that all the institutions from where the candidates  

obtained  their  B.Ed.  qualification  have  themselves  

received recognition from the Regional Council after the  

NCTE Act came into force.

29

25. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that  

the  impugned  judgments  do  not  suffer  from  any  

infirmities requiring our interference.

26. As  a  result,  the  appeals  fail  and  are  accordingly  

dismissed.  

…………………………………………J. (B. SUDERSHAN REDDY)

…………………………………………J. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 29, 2010.

30