Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Leave granted.

The question which requires consideration in this bunch of special leave petitions and writ petitions is whether Regulations 5 (e) and (f) framed by National Council for Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as 'the Council') are ultra vires the provisions of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). We will briefly refer to the facts of SLP No. 2421 of 2001 which is the leading case. The appellant claims to be a Christian Minority Teacher Training Institute and is run and managed by the Tamilnadu Educational Trust which is engaged in the field of education since 1989. The petitioner made an application to the Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education (Southern Committee) Bangalore, seeking permission for starting a course in Elementary Education Training in the year 1999-2000. The respondents sent a letter dated August 18, 1999 stating that unless the State Government issued a "No Objection Certificate" (hereinafter referred as 'NOC') the application of the petitioner shall be treated as incomplete and shall not be considered. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka praying that a writ of certiorari be issued for quashing the order dated August 18, 1999 issued by Regional Committee and further that Regulations 5(e) and (f) in so far as they direct obtaining of a NOC from the State Government be struck down as unconstitutional and a direction be issued to the Regional Director to consider the application of the appellant without insisting upon a NOC from the State Government. A Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court had held that Regulations 5 (e) and (f) were ultra vires in another matter and against the said judgment the Council had preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The writ petition preferred by the appellant was heard along with the aforesaid appeal. After hearing the parties the Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the Council and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge by which the Regulations were held to be ultra vires and invalid. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the appellant was also dismissed. The connected writ petitions have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution praying that the Regulations 5(e) and (f) be declared as unconstitutional and invalid and a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the application moved by the petitioners for grant of recognition for starting a teacher training course without insisting upon a NOC from the State Government as provided in the aforesaid Regulations. Shri K. Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that Section 14 of the Act lays down that every institution intending to offer a course or training in teacher education shall make an application to the Regional Committee concerned and the Regional Committee may pass an order granting recognition to such institution if it is satisfied that the institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution and this shows that the entire exercise has to be done by the Regional Committee itself. However, Regulations 5 (e) and (f) which require obtaining of a NOC from the State Government also confer jurisdiction on the State Government in the matter of grant of recognition, which is wholly outside the purview of the Act. It is urged that the Act does not contemplate any role for the State Government but by insisting for obtaining a NOC from the State Government or Union Territory in which the institution is located, the Regulations have created another body to consider the application moved by an institution for grant of recognition which is not at all contemplated by the Act. Learned Counsel has submitted that in view of the express language used in Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act, the satisfaction is to be that of the Regional Committee alone and no other authority or body, much less the State Government, can have any say in the matter which may have a bearing on the satisfaction of the Regional Committee. It is contended that under the guise of framing the Regulations, the power of recognition itself has been given to the State Government as in the event a NOC is not granted by the State Government, the application made to the Regional Committee is treated as incomplete and is not even considered on merits. Lastly it has been urged that no guidelines have been given in the impugned Regulations to indicate the circumstances under which a NOC could be granted and therefore the impugned Regulations are wholly ultra vires and invalid. In support of his submission learned counsel has placed strong reliance on a decision of this Court in Kunj Behari Lal Butail & Ors. v. State of H.P. & Ors., 2000 (3) SCC 40.

Shri MN Krishnamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Council has submitted that having regard to the objects for which the Act has been enacted and the responsibility cast upon the Regional Committee under Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act to be satisfied about the matters enumerated therein, namely, that the institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfills other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education, it is not only desirable but also essential for an institution to obtain a NOC from the concerned State Government or Union Territory where it is situate. Learned counsel has submitted that there are only four Regional Committees in the whole country and it is physically not possible for them to obtain the relevant data which has to be appraised and considered before grant of recognition and this exercise can only be performed by the concerned State Government which is in a far better position to do so. The main purpose of obtaining a NOC from the State Government, it is contended, is to get the material and data on which the Regional Committee has to be satisfied before taking a decision on the question of grant of recognition under Sub- section (3) of Section 14 of the Act and this is more in the nature of an input. Learned counsel has also submitted that no arbitrary power has been conferred on the State Government as the Council has issued guidelines for establishment of Teachers Training Institutes and introduction of new programmes and the State Governments are required to consider the matter in the light of the aforesaid guidelines while giving a NOC. It has thus been urged that as the function to be performed by the State Government is more in the nature of collection of relevant facts and material, there is no abdication of responsibility by the Regional Committee which alone shall pass an order either granting or refusing recognition to an institution and therefore the impugned Regulations are perfectly valid and intra vires. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Council it is averred that for long the need for ensuring certain standards and excellence of education in teachers' training institutes, and establishing institutes with the high objectives of training teachers and educationists who have upon them the task of moulding the future of the nation was being felt. The life-less stereotyped and dull teaching methods had to be replaced with a system that infuses dynamism and vibrance in the methods of imparting education. To achieve this it is necessary that only such institutes which are equipped with all the necessary inputs to train and produce teachers who are capable of instilling aesthetic excellence in the life of their pupil be established and permitted to run the teachers' training course. It was towards this end that the National Council for Teacher Education came to be established under the Act in the year 1993. In para 6 it is averred that the requirement of a NOC from the State Government was one of the issues that was deliberated upon by the members of the Council, including the experts from the field of education and academics. The State Governments have been assigned an important role in the task of development and improvement of teacher education and also in the matter for grant of recognition and permission. The States are also vitally interested in education and especially the professional courses. It is further averred that it is only the States which could correctly assess and know the extent of requirement of trained manpower and the supply of trained teachers keeping in view retirements, change of occupation etc. The State Government would also keep a track of number of trained teachers registered with the Employment Exchanges awaiting employment and the possibility of their deployment in the near future. It is for this reason that the Council insists on a NOC from the State Government, both when a fresh institution wants to start teacher training courses or when the recognised ones want to increase the intake of the students in the course. The States having trained teachers more than they are able to absorb may not want to be further burdened while those having shortage of trained teachers may encourage establishment of more institutions. Therefore, the input from the State Government by way of a NOC is vital for enabling the Council to discharge its functions of regulating the standards of teacher education since State Governments are the principal stakeholders in the field of teacher education. Without the involvement of the State Governments and availability of this vital input from the State Governments the Council would be greatly handicapped in discharging its functions. In para 9 it is averred that surplus of trained teachers without there being any possibility of absorbing them as teachers would lead to unnecessary drain on the state economy. In such a situation it would be wholly unjust to increase the burden on the State Government by training and throwing in market more trained teachers without there being any adequate avenues for their employment. The training of teachers cost both the State Governments and the trainees huge amount of money by way of fees and grants without there being any adequate scope for utilising their skills to compensate the costs involved in their training. The State Government is vitally interested in the development of its education system and therefore it must be given a decisive role and a voice in the overall development of teacher education system in the country. It is only to prevent the undesirable situation wherein the Government is faced with the problem of having surplus trained teachers with no or little chance of their getting employment in the near future that the requirement of a NOC from the State Government has been incorporated. It is further averred that it is an enabling provision under the Act and does not pose any impediment or any disability in the effective discharge of the statutory responsibilities by the Council as the State Government has only been given the responsibility of determining the extent to which trained manpower is required in a particular State. Before examining the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be convenient to briefly notice the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 2(c) defines the "Council" and it means the National Council for Teacher Education established under sub-section (1) of Section 3. Section 2(e) defines "institution", which means an institution which offers courses or training in teacher education. Section 2(j) defines "Regional Committee" which means a Committee established under Section 20. Section 2(k) defines "regulations" which means regulations made under Section 32. Section 2(l) defines "teacher education" which means programmes of education, research or training of persons for equipping them to teach at pre-primary, primary, secondary and senior secondary stages in schools and includes non-formal education, part-time education, adult education and correspondence education. Section 3 provides for establishment by the Central Government, of a Council, called the National Council for Teachers Education and Section 12 provides for the functions of the Council. Section 14 lays down that 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 the Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by Regulations. Section 15 contains a similar provision where under any recognised institution intending to start any new course or training in teacher education, has to make an application seeking permission therefor to the Regional Committee concerned. Section 16 lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force no examining body shall, on or after the appointed day, grant affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution or hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise for a course or training conducted by a recognised institution unless 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 gives power to Regional Committee to withdraw the recognition of such recognised institutions if it is satisfied that some provisions of the Act or the rules or regulations or any condition subject to which recognition was granted has been contravened. Section 20 lays down that there will be four Regional Committees, namely, Eastern, Western, Northern and Southern Regional Committees. Section 31 confers power on the Central Government to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act and sub-section (2) thereof enumerates the matters on which rules may be framed. Section 32 is important for the controversy in hand and the relevant part thereof is being reproduced below:-

8. Condition for recognition

(a) Regional Committee shall satisfy itself on the basis of scrutiny and verification of facts as contained in the application for recognition and or recognition of the institution where considered necessary of any other manner deemed fit, that the institutions has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and such other conditions required for the proper functioning of the institutions for the course of training in teacher education which are being offered or intending to offer.

Sub-section (3) of Section 14 casts a duty upon the Regional Committee to be satisfied with regard to large number of matters before passing an order granting recognition to an institution which has moved an application for the said purpose. The factors mentioned in sub-section (3) are that the 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 laid down in the Regulations. As mentioned earlier there are only four Regional Committees in the whole country and, therefore, each Regional Committee has to deal with applications for grant of recognition from several States. It is therefore obvious that it will not only be difficult but almost impossible for the Regional Committee to itself obtain complete particulars and details of financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and other conditions of the institution which has moved an application for grant of recognition. The institution may be located in the interior of the district in a far away State. The Regional Committee cannot perform such herculean task and it has to necessarily depend upon some other agency or body for obtaining necessary information. It is for this reason that the assistance of the State Government or Union Territory in which that institution is located is taken by the Regional Committee and this is achieved by making a provision in Regulations 5(e) and (f) that the application made by institution for grant of recognition has to be accompanied with a NOC from the concerned State or Union Territory. The impugned Regulations in fact facilitate the job of the Regional Committees in discharging their responsibilities. The contention that there are no guidelines for the State Governments regarding grant of a NOC and consequently the State Governments may refuse to grant a NOC on wholly irrelevant considerations is without substance. It is averred in para 7 of the counter-affidavit filed by the Council that it has issued certain guidelines to the State Governments on February 2, 1996 for issuance of a NOC and a copy whereof has also been annexed. The relevant part of the guidelines is being reproduced below:-