[Rule 7(5) NCTE Regulations, 2014] SC expounds State Government not further recognising new B.Ed. colleges helds ‘not Arbitrary’

 

On 10^th November 2022, the Supreme Court in a Division Bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh considered the question that “Whether the policy decision taken by the State Government can be said to be arbitrary which calls for interference of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?” (The State of Uttarakhand Vs. Nalanda College of Education and Others)

Facts of the Case:

The respondent no. 1 herein, original writ petitioner, was granted recognition for B.Ed. course of one year duration with an annual intake of 100 students by the NCTE under Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act on 22.02.2008. After the recognition, the original writ petitioner was affiliated to the HNB University under the U.P. State University Act, 1973. For the academic session 2013-14, the College applied to the Northern Regional Committee of the NCTE to increase the intake seats of the students. The opinion of the State Government was sought as per NCTE Regulations, 2014. The State Government vide order/communication dated 16.07.2013 sent its opinion and informed the Northern Regional Committee of NCTE that about 13000 students are passing B.Ed. course per annum against the need of 2500 teachers and therefore most of the students passing B.Ed. course would be unemployed. Consequently, the State Government opined that no fresh recognition be granted undertaking B.Ed. course and also opined to cancel the recognition of respondent college. Hence, a writ petition was filed before the HC. The petition was allowed and the said order was quashed. This was further made the subject matter of special appeal before the Division Bench. The appeal was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, present appeal was filed.  

 

Contentions of the Appellants:

The counsel for the appellants submitted that “a conscious policy decision was taken by the State Government not to grant recognition to the new Colleges for B.Ed. course and not to increase the intake capacity of the B.Ed. course for valid reasons/grounds, the same was not required to be interfered with by the High Court. Against the need of 2500 teachers per annum, approximately 13000 students would be passing out the B.Ed. course, which ultimately would result into unemployment. Such a decision cannot be said to be arbitrary. Even as per NCTE Regulations, before the Regional Committee takes a decision on grant of recognition/increase in the intake capacity, the opinion of the State Government is must, which includes the detailed reasons or grounds with necessary statistics. Therefore, the State Government was well within its rights in submitting the opinion and/or taking a decision against the recognition, which was with necessary statistics.” The cases of Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh v. State of Maharashtra & Others, Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, State of Rajasthan v. LBS B.Ed. College & Others, and Gangadhar and Another v. Union of India and others were refereed. Moreover, the Rule 7 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, was also relied upon. 

 

No one appeared for the respondent even though served.

Observations and Judgment of the Court:

The hon’ble court observed that “the HC has committed a serious error in holding that the decision not to recommend for the new B.Ed. colleges can be said to be arbitrary. At this stage, it is required to be noted that under the provisions of the NCTE Regulations, the State is well within its right to make suitable recommendations. As per Rule 7(5) of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, on receipt of the communication from the office of the Regional Committee to the State, the State Government is required to send its recommendations or comments to the Regional Committee. It further provides that in case the State Government is not in favour of the recommendation, it shall provide detailed reasons or grounds thereof with necessary statistics, which shall be taken into consideration by the Regional Committee concerned while disposing of the application. Therefore, the State Government was well within its right to recommend and/or opine that the State Government is not in favour of granting further recognition to the new B.Ed. colleges as against the need of annually 2500 teachers approximately 13000 students would be passing out every year, therefore, for the remaining students, there will be unemployment.”

 

The present appeal succeeded, the order passed by the Division bench of HC confirming the Judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge was quashed and set aside.

Case: The State of Uttarakhand Vs. Nalanda College of Education and Others

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 8013 Of 2022

Bench: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh

Date: November 10, 2022. 

Social media is bold. 

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!   

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure