Karnataka High Court
National Council For Teacher ... vs Dr. Sri Jachani Rastriya Seva Peetha, ... on 9 October, 2000
Equivalent citations: ILR2001KAR1148, 2001(6)KARLJ17, 2001 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1100, (2001) 6 KANT LJ 17
Bench: Ashok Bhan, R. Gururajan
JUDGMENT
1. National Council for Teacher Education, statutory body of the Government of India, is before us aggrieved by the declaration of Regulation 5(e) and (f) of the National Council for Teacher Education (Application for Recognition, the Manner for Submission, Determination of Conditions for Recognition of Institution and Permission to start New Courses of Training) Regulations, 1995 (for short 'Regulation') as ultra vires by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Dr. Sri Jachani Rashtreeya Seva Peetha, Bangalore v State of Karnataka and Others, on the following factual matrix:
2. The appellant, the National Council for Teacher Education (for short the 'Council') is a statutory body having taken its birth under the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act of 1993 (for short the 'Act'). The said Council is established for teacher education with a view of achieving planned and coordinated development of teacher education system throughout the country. The statute casts a duty on the Council to take all steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and coordinated development of teachers education under Section 12 of the Act. Section 14 of the Act provides for recognition of teacher education institution. The Council is statutorily empowered to grant recognition to an institution in terms of the Act.
3. Respondent-institution made an application seeking for no objection certificate from the State Government which came to be refused by the State Government by an order dated 12-8-1996 Annexure-E to the writ petition on the ground that in terms of the policy of the State Government the request for starting new educational institution cannot be granted. The respondent-institution also made an application for recognition under Section 14 of the Act but the same was rejected by the Council by an endorsement dated 1-8-1997 for want of no objection certificate in terms of the Regulation 5(b) of the Regulations.
4. The respondent in these circumstances filed a petition in Writ Petition No. 1879 of 1998 seeking for a relief for quashing the endorsement at Annexure-E, dated 12/13-8-1996 and also seeking for an order to strike down the Regulation 5(e) and (f) of Regulations requiring no objection certificate as unconstitutional and ab initio void.
5. Similar petitions were filed on the same/similar facts and circumstances. All the petitions were heard together and by a detailed order the learned Judge after noticing the object of the Act, State law on teacher education, powers and functions of State Government and validity of clauses (e) and (f) of Regulation 5 passed an order declaring that the legislative field pertaining to teacher education being already covered by the Central legislations, the State Government has ceased to have any power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India to take any policy decision with regard to the said subject. Clauses (e) and (0 of Regulation 5 of the Regulations were declared as ultra vires of the power of the National Council and are struck down as such. The learned Judge ruled that consequently the decision taken by the Regional Committee or the Appellate Authority for refusing recognition on the ground that non-grant of no objection certificate by the State Government stands vitiated in law. Writ petitions were thus allowed with a direction to the appellant-Council to consider/reconsider the application filed by the institutions for grant of recognition without insisting for obtaining the no objection certificate from the State Government.
6. Aggrieved by the striking down of the clauses (e) and (f) of Regulation 5 and aggrieved by the directions of the learned Judge this appeal is filed by the appellant before us.
7. Sri D.V. Shylendra Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government addressed us in support of various contentions raised in the appeal. He argues that reading as a whole, the preamble to the Act, the object of the Act, the power of the Council and the duty cast on the Council, the striking down Regulation 5(e) is uncalled for on the facts of the case. He finds fault with the findings of the learned Judge by reiterating the same contentions addressed before the learned Single Judge.
8. Per contra Sri V. Laxminarayana, Sri M.S. Bhagawat, Sri G. Shan-thappa and other learned Counsels support the order of the learned Judge and contend that the Regulation 5(e) is in the nature of a condition which cannot be accepted as rightly held by the learned Judge. Learned Government Advocate supports the Council and endorse Sri Shylendra's argument, Counsel for the appellant before us. The matter was heard on several days.
9. After hearing we pass the following order.
10. Objects of the Act.--This case essentially involves recognition to be granted to a Teacher Training Institution by the Council. The Apex Court has considered the importance of a Teacher Training Institution in more than one case. We shall just refer to few cases for the purpose of noticing the importance of an organised, streamlined development of teachers educational institutions in the country in terms of the preamble to the Act. In the case of Smt. Chameli Watt and Another v Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others, the Supreme Court ruled:
"The Teacher Training Institutes are meant to teach children of impressionable age and we cannot let loose on the innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not received proper and adequate training. True they will be required to pass the examination but that may not be enough. Training for a certain minimum period in a properly organised and equipped Training Institute is probably essential before a teacher may he duly launched".
11. Again Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Kesari Education Society v Director of School Education, observed as under:
"Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the rote of a teacher is central to all processes of formal education. The teacher alone could bring out the skills and intellectual capabilities of students. He is the "engine" of the educational system. He is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values. He needs to be endowed and energised with needed potential to deliver enlightened service expected of him. His quality should be such as would inspire and motivate into action the benefiter. He must keep himself abreast of ever changing conditions. He is not to perform in a wooden and unimaginative way. He must eliminate fissiparous tendencies and attitudes and infuse nobler and national ideas in younger minds. His involvement in national integration is more important, indeed indispensable. It is, therefore, needless to state that teachers should be subjected to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny of efficiency. It has greater relevance to the needs of the day. The ill-trained or sub-standard teachers would be detrimental to our educational system; if not a punishment on our children. The Government and the University must, therefore, take care to see that inadequacy in the training of teachers is not compounded by any extraneous consideration".
12. Again the Supreme Court in a very recent judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra v Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, speaking through Hon'ble Justice K. Ramaswamy has observed as under:
"The teacher plays pivotal role in moulding the career, character and moral fibres and aptitude for educational excellence in impressive young children. The formal education needs proper equipment by the teachers to meet the challenges of the day to impart lessons with latest techniques to the students on secular, scientific and rational outlook. A well-equipped teacher could bring the needed skills and intellectual capabilities of the students in their pursuits. The teacher is adored as Gurudevobhava, next after parents, as he is a principal instrument to awakening the child to theethos, intellectual excellence and discipline. The teachers, therefore, must keep abreast with ever changing technics, the needs of the society and to cope up with the psychological approach to the aptitudes of the children to perform that pivotal role".
13. The Government of India has evolved the national education policy in 1986. In these days of commercial shopping of education the Parliament in its wisdom thought it fit to enact a comprehensive law on teacher education by enacting the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1983 (for short the 'Act'). The preamble to the Act states that this is an Act to provide for the establishment of National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieving the planned and coordinated development of teacher education system throughout the country. The regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith. Chapter II provides for the establishment of Council consisting of experts in the field in addition to representatives of various States and Union Territories for effective functioning. Chapter III in particular Sections 12 and 13 provide for functions of the Council. Chapter IV provides for recognition under Section 14 and for permission for a new course on training by recognised institution under Section 15. Section 17 provides for contravention of provisions of the Act and consequences thereof. Appellate Authority is constituted under Section 18. The Act further provides for an Executive Committee and a General Committee. Section 32 provides for framing regulations.
14. In the case on hand we essentially are concerned with the recognition in terms of Section 14 of the Teachers Educational Institutions. Section 12 categorically cast a duty to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and coordinated development of teacher education and for the determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education. The Council has to undertake surveys and studies relating to various aspects of teacher education and publish the result thereof and make recommendations to the Central and State Governments, Universities, University Grants Commission and recognised institutions in the matter of preparation of suitable plans and programmes in the field of teacher education and coordinate and monitor teacher education and its development in the country; lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in schools or in recognised institutions; lay down norms for any specified category of courses or trainings in teacher education, including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum; lay down guidelines for compliance by recognised institutions, for starting new courses or training, and for providing physical and instructional facilities, staffing pattern and staff qualifications; lay down standards in respect of examination leading to teacher education qualifications, criteria for admission to such examination and schemes of courses or training; lay down guidelines regarding tuition fees and other fees chargeable by recognised institutions; promote and conduct innovation and research in various areas of teacher education and disseminate the results thereof; examine and review periodically the implementation of the norms, guidelines and standards laid down by the Council, and to suitably advise the recognised institutions; evolve suitable performance appraisal systems, norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability on recognised institutions; formulate schemes for various levels of teacher education and identify recognised institutions and set up new institutions for teacher development programs; take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of teacher education; and perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the Central Government.
15. Section 14 provides for recognition to teacher education institution. Since the bone of contention between the parties is with regard to recognition, we deem it proper to quote the very section for proper understanding of the implications of the recognition. Section 14 reads as under:
"Section 14 -- (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 sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.
(3) On receipt of an application by the regional committee from any institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall--
(a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it 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 fulfil 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 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 Central Government.
(5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course of 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 sub-section (4)--
(a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or
(b) xxxx;
(c) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused",
16. A careful reading of the provision indicates that under Section 14(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. Proviso 1 to Section 14 provides for six months time for making application in respect of an existing institution prior to the commencement of the Act providing for teacher education. Sub-section (3) of Section 14 provides for considering by the Regional Committee, for grant of recognition. Regional Committee if satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils such conditions may grant recognition. If the institution does not fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), may pass an order refusing recognition to such institution for reasons to be recorded in writing. Section 18 provides for an appeal to the Council for an aggrieved person against the order passed under Section 14, 15 or 17 of the Act.
17. Section 32 of the Act provides for framing of regulation not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, generally to carry out the provisions of this Act. Sub-section (2) in particular provides for framing of regulations in the form and the manner in which the application for recognition is to be submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 14 and the conditions required for the proper functioning of the institution and conditions for granting recognition under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 14.
18. Exercising its power under Section 32 the Council has framed the regulations known as National Council for Teacher Education to be followed by the Regional Committee Regulations, 1996. Regulation 5 provides for making an application. Clauses (e) and (f) with which we are concerned are quoted below for proper understanding:
"(e) Every institution intending to offer a course or training in teacher education but was not functioning immediately before 17th August, 1995 shall submit application for recognition with a no objection certificate from the State or Union Territory in which the institution is located.
(f) Application for permission to start new course or training and/or to increase, intake by recognised institutions under Regulation 4 above shall be submitted to the Regional Committee concerned with no objection certificate from the State or Union Territory in which the institution is located".
19. We have in the earlier paragraph observed the object of the Act, recognition under the Act and the Regulations framed under the Act. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has struck down Regulation 5{e) and (f) on two grounds viz., that any order passed by the Regional Committee on the basis of policy decision amounts to acting on extraneous dictation and that the Council has abdicated its statutory power to the State Government without there being corresponding obligation on the State Government for grant of recognition by its discretion within the framework. The learned Judge also ruled that the Regulation 5(e) providing for no objection certificate amounts to a condition precedent for maintainability of an application. According to the learned Judge Section 14(1) only prescribes the form and manner in which application has to be filed and in the guise of the said power a condition is imposed under Section 5(e) which cannot be done by the Council under the Act according to the learned Judge.
20. We will be dealing with both these findings of the learned Judge in this appeal.
21. The Counsel appearing for the contesting institutions admitted before us that the State has not enacted any law relating to teacher education. Therefore, we do not want to dwell in detail with regard to the findings of the learned Judge on the issue of repugnancy. We do accept that in view of a covered legislation by the Central Government in terms of this Act, this Act shall have a overriding effect on State legislation, if any, as rightly held by the learned Judge. Insofar as powers and functions of State Government is concerned the learned Judge has ruled that the State Government has no power at all under the Act and therefore the State Government cannot seek aid from Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Before us the Counsel for the State Government has stated that they do not say that the no objection certificate sought from them is under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand he fairly concedes that the said certificate is to be obtained in terms of the provisions of this Act. In view of this submission, we feel that it is not necessary to deal with the power of the State Government under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.
22. Mr. Shylendra Kumar, learned Counsel took us through the provisions in support of his contentions to contend that the findings of the learned Judge is wrong on the facts of this case.
23. Essentially this Act was enacted for achieving planned and coordinated development of teacher education system throughout the country. Ours is a federal structure of system and there has to be a planned and coordinated development of teacher education system in the country, As rightly observed by the Supreme Court as referred to by us in the earlier paragraphs teacher education has to be guarded with all its sanctity to maintain the principle of "Gurudevobhava" as held by the Supreme Court. That object can be achieved only by a planned and coordinated development in terms of the preamble to the Act. Section 3 provides for a National Council where the Council is represented by various experts in addition to the representatives of the State Government. Under Section 12 of the Act a duty is cast on the Council to take all steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and coordinated development of teacher education and for determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education and for the purpose of performing its function under the Act. We have already referred to in the earlier paragraphs about the recognition, statutes, scheme etc. In the light of the object of the various provisions it cannot be said that the State Government has to be excluded absolutely for effective implementation of the Act. Mr. Shylendra Kumar, learned Counsel in our opinion is right in his contention that for planned and proper development of teacher education the State Government has to be involved as its agents for collecting datas, views, input etc., for proper implementation of the Act as man-dated under Section 12 of the Act. If one keeps in mind the duty of "planned and coordinated development of teacher education in the country" no option is left other than to involve State Government as an agent of the Council for planned development. How far the State Government can be involved is another matter but to say that the State Government has no say at all or that any views of the State Government is impermissible in law cannot be accepted in the light of the preamble and the statutory duty in terms of the Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the no objection certificate seeking from the State Government by way of input/view cannot be termed as extraneous dictation as held by the learned Single Judge.
24. We having held so have to see as to the involvement of the State Government by way of 'No objection certificate' by the State Government in terms of Regulation 5(e) being unconstitutional. We will be dealing with it in the next paragraph.
25. Regulation 5(e) provides for a no objection certificate along with the application. Learned Judge while interpreting Regulation 5(e) has come to a conclusion that it is a condition precedent and such a condition cannot be imposed while prescribing the manner of making an application. We have been taken through the scheme of the Act, various provisions of the Act, object of the regulation and the guidelines issued by the State Government. From a reading of Regulation 5(e) it appears to us that the Regulation 5 indicates of an application being made in the form given under the Act and it further provides for an application being made along with the no objection certificate. Neither the Act or the regulations framed under the Act nowhere state that without such certificate the application would not be entertained. On the other hand a reading of Section 14 makes it clear to us that if an application is made seeking for recognition, the Council if satisfied may grant recognition unconditionally or conditionally under Section 14(3)(a), if the Council is of the opinion that the requirement is not fulfilled by a institution it may refuse to grant recognition for the reasons to be recorded in writing. While doing so a reasonable opportunity is also provided to the concerned institution for making a written representation. An appeal is further provided under Section 18 against such orders. After reading all these provisions together we are of the view that the seeking of no objection certificate in the light of the planned and coordinated development being the duty cast on the Council, is nothing but seeking an input from the State Government or seeking its views for proper coordinated development. The view/input is also based on the guidelines framed by the Council to facilitate its objects. It cannot be termed as a condition as held by the learned Judge. Therefore the finding that Section 5(e) cast a condition as held by the learned Judge is contrary to the reading of the entire Act as a whole.
26. We also find support with regard to our views that the no objection certificate in the form of the views in the light of a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Thiru-vananthapuram. The Supreme Court in the said case was considering the scope of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 vis-a-vis approval of State Government. While considering these two Acts the Supreme Court in the said judgment has ruled that views obtained from the State Government did not amount to approval of the State Government.
27. In fact to our repeated questioning of the Counsel for the Council, he states that the Act does not provide for throwing out of an application in the event of failure to provide no objection certificate by an institution. On the other hand the Counsel rightly in our opinion concedes that even in the absence of the same, the Council shall consider such application in terms of Section 14(3)(b) and pass orders against which an appeal also lies under the Act. We are of the view that taking into consideration the scheme of the Act the duty cast on the Council and the power conferred under Section 32, Regulation 5(e) has to be read down as only providing for seeking a view from the State Government by way of no objection certificate or as an input for proper consideration of planned and coordinated development of teacher education. If the regulation so read it cannot be struck down as being in excess of the statutory power granted to the Council under the Act. The Council has neither surrendered or abdicated its function in the light of our finding that the no objection certificate from the State Government is nothing but an input or view for proper guaranteed development.
28. The learned Judge has relied on the judgment in Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust v State of Tamil Nadu, the said case is clearly distinguishable on facts. In that case there were two legislations (the State and the Central) legislations governing the field. In those given set of facts the Supreme Court has ruled in the said case that the essentiality certificate cannot be withheld by the State Government on any policy consideration. That judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts.
29. The Counsel for the respondent-institutions argued that Regulation 5(e) imposed a condition. We have already held in the earlier paragraph that the no objection certificate sought for by the Council is in the form of an input or the views, and hence the contentions of "condition precedent" is to be rejected in the light of our finding on the issue.
30. Before we consider the case-law cited before us we deem it proper to refer to a passage occurring on Craies on Statute law (Sixth Edition), page 99 reading as under:
"In Brett v Brett, Sri John Nicholl M.R., said as follows: "The key to the opening of every law is the reason and spirit of the law; it is the animus imponentis, the intention of the law-maker expressed in the law itself, taken as a whole. Hence, to arive at the true meaning of any particular phrase in a statute, the particular phrase is not to be viewed detached from its context in the statute, it is to be viewed in connection with its whole context, meaning by this as well the title and preamble as the purview or enacting part of the statute".
31. The Supreme Court in the case of Poppatlal Shah, Partner of Messrs Indo Malayan Trading Company v State of Madras, has ruled in para 7 as under with regard to interpretation of statute:
"It is settled rule of construction that to ascertain the legislative intent, all the constitutional parts of a statute are to be taken together and each word, phrase or sentence is to be considered in the light of the general purpose and object of the Act itself.
32. In the case of K. Balakrishna Rao and Others v Haji Abdulla Sait and Others, while considering the Amendment Act 11 of 1964 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, has ruled in para 18 that:
"the object with which the Amending Act was passed and that was to give relief against unreasonable evictions and demands for unconscionable rates of rents to tenants of buildings which had been originally exempted from the operation of the principal Act. It is clear that while doing so the legislature gave relief also to persons against whom suits had been filed. We think that the words "instituted on the ground that such building or part was exempt from the provisions of the principal Act by virtue of clause (iii) of Section 30 of the principal Act" should be construed in the context in which they appear as referring to a proceeding which had been instituted in the light of Section 30(iii) of the principal Act which granted exemption in respect of the buildings referred to therein from the operation of the principal Act and any other construction would defeat the object of the Amending Act".
33. In a very recent judgment of Supreme Court in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited v State of Bihar and Another, has ruled as under in para 15 in the said judgment:
"Statutes, it is often said, should be construed not as theorems of Euclid but with some imagination of the purposes which He behind them and to be too literal in the meaning of words is to see the skin and miss the soul. The method suggested for adoption, in cases of doubt as to the meaning of the words used is to explore the intention of the legislature through the words, the context which gives the colour, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequences or the spirit and reason of the law. The general words and collocation or phrases, howsoever wide or comprehensive in their literal sense are interpreted from the context and scheme underlying in the text of the Act".
34. In the light of the enunciation of law by the Apex Court and on the principle of interpretation of statutes we are clear in our mind that the soul of the Act is a planned and coordinated development of teacher education and for the said purpose and in the context and subject-matter of legislation the Council has sought these inputs/views by way of no objection certificate for implementation of its objects. We may also notice a word of caution by Supreme Court in the matter of education in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education and Another v Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth and Others, which has ruled in para 29 as under:
"Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defeasive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded, It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case".
35. We from the pleadings, the regulations and the object of the Act hold that what the Council has done in the case on hand in terms of Regulation 5(e) is only to collect information by way of input from a high power body in the Government for proper working of the system.
36. We will also be failing in our duty if we do not refer to a binding judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 5864 of 1998, DD: 17-2-1999 (Kar.). A Division Bench of this Court while noticing Regulation 5(e) has ruled in unmistakable terms that Regulation 5(e) cannot be said to be ultra vires of the provisions of the Constitution. This is what the Division Bench states in paras 5 and 6:
"Section 32 of the Act empowers the Council to frame rules and regulations. In pursuance of the said power Regulation 5(e) is framed. By reading the above regulation it is manifest that no objection certificate has to be filed along with the application for recognition of the institution under Section 14 of the Act. The rules are framed to facilitate the implementation of the provisions of the Act. Section 14 of the Act specifically provides for the method of filing application, the form and manner in which the application to be submitted and condition for granting recognition.
By virtue of the power conferred by Section 32 of the Act, the regulation is framed. Therefore, it cannot be said that Regulation 5(e) is ultra vires of the provisions of the Act and Constitution. When there is requirement and it is not complied with it cannot be said that the impugned order is invalid".
37. The Madras High Court in the identical circumstances has in the case of Lords and Angels Teachers Training Institute v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, has upheld these very clauses in the light of the object and principles of the Act in seeking the aid of the Government in the matter of recognition which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) G.A. No. (8)15423 of 1997, DD: 5-9-1997.
38. The respondents' Counsel brought to our notice that the Government while not issuing no objection certificate has acted in an unfair manner and in an arbitrary fashion. The learned Single Judge has also noticed the same in the impugned order in para 24 with regard to grant of no objection in the case of Kaginele TTI with TCH at Bangalore v Kaginele College of Education at Mysore. It also noticed the grant of no objection to Anjuman TTI with TCH course for academic year 1996-97, College of Education in Shikaripura, Adi Chunchanagiri C.P. Ed. College, Bapuji Education Society, Challekere, Bharath Universal TTI College, Tiptur.
39. The State Government in these present cases has objected and refused to grant no objection certificate on the ground there is already adequate number of institutions providing for teacher education. Any addition would result in mushroom growth of teacher education institutions affecting the coordinated development of teacher education system. But at the same time as noticed by us and also by the learned Judge in para 24 of the impugned order the Government has for one reason or the other has granted no objection in the case of a privileged few. This to our mind gives an impression that the Government is not fair in providing no objection by way of its view or inputs to the Council. The Central Council depends upon the State Government for statistics and programmes for proper implementation of the Act. Unless the State Government gives proper datas it would be suicidal to the working of the Act. Though the petitioners complain of this arbitrary decision of the Government in respect of these institutions as referred to in para 24, those institutions had not been made party to the writ petitions and no directions were sought against them. In the absence of those institutions being made party to the writ petitions we will not be issuing any adverse directions against these institutions but at the same time we express our displeasure on the act of the State Government and we leave to the wise Counsel of the Council to take such action as it deemed fit in this matter.
40. Having held that these regulations are valid and legal the next question is with regard to reliefs to be granted on the peculiar facts of this case. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has struck down the regulation and therefore he has not gone into the order of the Committee in the matter of recognition. Now that we have upheld the regulations, we deem it proper to direct the Regional Committee to consider the applications submitted by the respondent-institutions with the endorsement of the State Government in terms of Regulation 5(e) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Act and the regulation, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this order. In case if the orders are already passed rejecting the request of the institutions we deem it proper to direct those institutions to prefer an appeal against those orders within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order under Section 18 of the Act. If any such appeal is made, the Council is directed to take on record that appeal filed under Section 18 without insisting on limitation on the peculiar facts of this case. In conclusion we pass the following order.
41. We accept the appeal filed by the National Council for Teacher Education and Another and the order of learned Single Judge dated 22-3-1999 is hereby set aside.
42. Regulation 5(e) and (f) are held to be constitutional, valid and binding on parties and we further declare that they are enforceable in law in the matter of recognition under Section 14 of the Act.
43. A direction is issued to the Regional Council to consider the application submitted by the institution with the endorsement of the State Government within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and a further direction is issued to the respondent-institution to prefer an appeal if so desired in those cases where an adverse order is passed by the Committee to the Appellate Body in terms of Section 18 within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order in which case the Council shall not insist on limitation on the facts of case. We further direct the parties to bear their respective costs.