UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHAH GOVERDHAN L KABRA TEACHERS COLLEGE
LAWS(SC)-2002-10-34
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on
October 23,2002
UNION OF INDIA
Appellant
VERSUS
SHAH GOVERDHAN LAL KABRA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
HEERA MANI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2015-9-54] [REFERRED TO]RAMRAJ TADA VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-8-210] [REFERRED TO]
OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PVT LTD VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(SC)-2011-1-112] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH NARAYAN MALI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-1-45] [REFERRED TO]
GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY [LAWS(GJH)-2013-4-266] [REFERRED TO]
COL JAGMOHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2010-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
ZAKIRHUSSAIN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2003-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2016-8-76] [REFERRED TO]
KHARAGPUR TRIBAL PRIMARY TEACHERS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2008-7-45] [REFERRED TO]
PRESTON COLLEGE VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2007-2-72] [REFERRED TO]
M.G. SINDHU VS. P.G. SANTHOSH [LAWS(KER)-2014-7-53] [REFERRED TO]
HOME SOLUTIONS RETAILS INDIA LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-9-272] [REFERRED TO]
UPENDRA NARAIN SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
ITI LTD VS. VENUGOPALAN N [LAWS(KAR)-2010-3-116] [REFERRED TO]
ADARSH RAJABHOJ SHIKSHAN SAMITI VS. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS EDUCATION AND THREE O [LAWS(MPH)-2011-2-165] [REFERRED]
RUKMANI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION KADAYANALLUR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-10-45] [REFERRED TO]
ANNAI J K K SAMPOORANI AMMAL CHARITABLE TRUST VS. BHARATHIYAR UNIVERSITY [LAWS(MAD)-2006-12-64] [REFERRED TO]
K RAMAKRISHNAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-3-156] [REFERRED TO]
INDUSIND BANK VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-2-114] [REFERRED TO]
A.A. PADMANBHAN VS. THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2018-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2013-12-34] [REFERRED TO (VIDE PARA 7).]
ASSAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2008-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
CAPT (RETD ) O P SHARMA & ANR VS. KAMLA SHARMA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2008-3-387] [REFERRED]
SELF FINANCING PRIVATE TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2006-8-282] [REFERRED TO]
RAMRAJ TADA VS. STATE AND 2 ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-8-85] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH CHAND AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-2-122] [REFERRED TO]
THUFAIL AND ORS. VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-7-126] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYADARSHNI INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & SCIENCE VS. UNIVERSITY OF JAMMU [LAWS(J&K)-2017-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-3-54] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA MOTIRAM FIRAKE VS. JANATA SHIKSHAN MANDAL [LAWS(BOM)-2009-6-92] [REFERRED TO]
TULSI BAKSI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2008-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
S BAGAVATHY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-3-287] [REFERRED TO]
Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi through its Registrar VS. State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Basic Education, Lucknow and others [LAWS(ALL)-1958-5-20] [REFERRED TO]
JAYESHBHAI KANJIBHAI KALATHIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2010-10-290] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-5-14] [REFERRED TO]
KM. MAMTA GUPTA ETC. AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION AND OTHER [LAWS(CHH)-2007-8-34] [REFERRED TO]
NARINDER BATRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2009-3-156] [REFERRED TO]
EMARATA RAM POONIYA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
MANU KUMARI VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-12-122] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(SC)-2005-5-22] [REFERRED TO]
PANDURANG GANPATI CHAUGULE VS. VISHWASRAO PATIL MURGUD SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2020-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
LABH CHAND JAIN VS. SATISH KUMAR MEENA [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-7-267] [REFERRED]
B.S. MEENA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
SARIKA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA NATH TIWARI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-2-77] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDER KUMAR AND ANR. AND VS. STATE COUNCIL OF EDUCATION RESEARCH AND TRAINING AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2009-1-267] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD. VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2017-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
RIJU PRASAD SARMA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2011-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
KANUBHAI CHUNIBHAI PATEL VS. ANANDIBEN PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2004-6-13] [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH SRIHARSHA & MARY INDRAJA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2017-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
N. Venugopalan S/o Late K. Nateshan and others VS. The Chairman Cum Managing Director, ITI Ltd., The Additional Director (P and A), ITI Limited, The Union of India (UOI), Ministry of Industry, Department of Public Enterprises rep. by its Directo [LAWS(KAR)-2010-3-194] [REFERRED TO]
S. VINCENT VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-309] [REFERRED TO]
DR. DALPAT SINGH RAJPUROHIT VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
K K BASKARAN VS. STATE [LAWS(SC)-2011-3-40] [REFERRED TO]
ASHESH KUMAR AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-4-129] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR VERMA VS. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
BIMOLANGSHU ROY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS. STATE OF ASSAM & ANOTHER [LAWS(SC)-2017-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VS. KUMAON STONE CRUSHER [LAWS(SC)-2017-9-108] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M.P. VS. RAKESH SETHI [LAWS(SC)-2020-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT VS. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION NEW DELHI [LAWS(KER)-2003-7-35] [REFERRED TO]
M/S FATEH GRANITE LTD. VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. [LAWS(MPH)-2003-3-144] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDERLAL SHRIVASTAVA VS. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR THE TEACHERS EDUCATION [LAWS(MPH)-2012-4-99] [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. KERALA BAR HOTELS ASSOCIATION [LAWS(KER)-2014-10-255] [REFERRED TO]
ISMAYIL VS. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR [LAWS(KER)-2011-3-245] [REFERRED TO]
A. GOPINATHAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2019-9-140] [REFERRED TO]
DR. K.K.VIJAYAN VS. CHANCELLOR, KERALA UNIVERSITY OF FISHERIES AND OCEAN STUDIES [LAWS(KER)-2022-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
SH. R. LALTHANZUAVA AND 87 OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND 6 OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2017-11-67] [REFERRED TO]
DRAVIDIAN UNIVERSITY VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2018-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. ANANT KUMAR TIWARI [LAWS(ALL)-2002-11-132] [REFERRED]
SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-1-159] [REFERRED TO]
GIRNAR TRADERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2011-1-52] [REFERRED TO]
PAHALMAN SUBBA, S/O LT RAN BAHADUR SUBBA VS. STATE OF SIKKIM, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2017-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
PASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD VS. RAMAN ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2023-7-40] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2008-2-84] [REFERRED TO]
INDU DEVI VS. ZILA SAMAJ KALYAN ADHIKARI KUSHINAGAR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-731] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH SINGH THAKUR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2007-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
SAI TRADERS VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-6-111] [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-12-187] [REFERRED TO]
IMT INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2023-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
B.M. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. NATIONAL COUNCIL [LAWS(MPH)-2014-2-80] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR VS. VENUGOPALAN [LAWS(KAR)-2010-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH CHANDRA HARIJAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-1-118] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. M/S. TATA TEA CO. LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2017-9-88] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV KUMAR VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2005-8-82] [REFERRED TO]
RAJADHANI RYTHU PARIRAKSHANA SAMITHI, VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2022-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
SAMPURNAND SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-5-122] [REFFERED TO]
GODAVARI POLYMER VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-4-170] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDER PRASHAD VS. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2016-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
MURALEEDHARAN T. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-6-162] [REFERRED TO]
PARISONS FOODS P LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2008-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Pattanaik, J. -
(1.)This Appeal by the Union of India is directed against the Judgment of Rajasthan High Court allowing the Writ Petition filedbefore it. A private educational institution conducting courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of Education filed a Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Northern Regional Committee ofNational Council for teachers education rejecting the application of the institution for recognition of the B. Ed. (Vacation Course). The institution was directed not to admit students in the vacation course from 1999-2000 onwards. In the Writ Petition, the constitutional validity of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (Act 73 of 1993, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was also challenged. The High Court by impugned judgment came to hold that the order de-recognising the vacation course is bad in law. The High Court also struck down S. 17(4) of the Act.
(2.)The Parliament enacted the Act and provided for the establishment of a council for teacher education with a view to achieving planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country and for regulation of proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system. Section 17 of the Act, with which we are concerned in the present case, is extracted hereinbelow :
Section 17."Contravention of provisions of the Act and consequences thereof.- (1) Where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognised institution has contravened any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under sub-sec. (3) of S. 14 or permission under sub-section (3) of Section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognised institution for reasons to be recorded in writing :
Provided that no such order against the recognised instituting shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order has been given to such recognised institution :
Provided further that the order withdrawing or refusing recognition passed by the Regional Committee shall come into force only with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of such order.
(2) A copy of every order passed by the Regional Committee under sub-sec. (1),-
(a)shall be communicated to the recognised institution concerned and a copy thereof shall also be forwarded simultaneously to the university or the examining body to which such institution was affiliated for cancelling affiliation; and
(b) shall be published in the Official Gazette for general information.
(3) Once the recognition of a recognised institution is withdrawn under sub-sec. (1), such institution shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education, andthe concerned University or the examining body shall cancel affiliation of the institution in accordance with the orderpassed under sub-sec. (1), with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the said order.
(4) If an institution offers any course or training in teacher education after the coming into force of the order withdrawing recognition under sub-sec. (1), or where an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University, or in any school, college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government."
(3.)On and from the date of enforcement of the Act, every institution, offering or intending to offer the course or training inteacher 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 S. 14 of the Act. In accordance with the said provision the respondent institution made an application for grant of recognition to the Bachelor of Education (vacation course). This application, having been rejected by the Northern Regional Committee of the council, the respondent had approached the High Court. Having regard to the Entry 66 of the List I of the SeventhSchedule of the Constitution, the High Court did record a conclusion that the Parliament has the legislative competence for enacting the Act with a view for achieving planned and co-ordinated development of theteacher education system. But so far as S. 17(4) of the Act is concerned, the High Court held that the Parliament cannot make law prescribing qualification for entry into the service under the State Government and such law can be made only under the Proviso to Article 309 of the constitution. In the opinion of the High Court, when NCTE cannot force a State or State funded institution to employ only teachers having a particular qualification like B. Ed. or B. P. Ed. or it cannot force the State Government for the employee to have B. Ed. degree then it cannot have power under any law to de-recognize any such degree for the purpose of employment and as such sub-sec.(4) of S. 17 is unconstitutional and ultra-vires of the Constitution. Having struck down S. 17 (4) of the Act, the High Court further directed the NCTE to issue certificate of recognition to the B. Ed. (vacation course) of the institution since the regulation of B. Ed. course imparted by the same institution was recognised by the council.
(2.)The Parliament enacted the Act and provided for the establishment of a council for teacher education with a view to achieving planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country and for regulation of proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system. Section 17 of the Act, with which we are concerned in the present case, is extracted hereinbelow :
Section 17."Contravention of provisions of the Act and consequences thereof.- (1) Where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognised institution has contravened any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under sub-sec. (3) of S. 14 or permission under sub-section (3) of Section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognised institution for reasons to be recorded in writing :
Provided that no such order against the recognised instituting shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order has been given to such recognised institution :
Provided further that the order withdrawing or refusing recognition passed by the Regional Committee shall come into force only with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of such order.
(2) A copy of every order passed by the Regional Committee under sub-sec. (1),-
(a)shall be communicated to the recognised institution concerned and a copy thereof shall also be forwarded simultaneously to the university or the examining body to which such institution was affiliated for cancelling affiliation; and
(b) shall be published in the Official Gazette for general information.
(3) Once the recognition of a recognised institution is withdrawn under sub-sec. (1), such institution shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education, andthe concerned University or the examining body shall cancel affiliation of the institution in accordance with the orderpassed under sub-sec. (1), with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the said order.
(4) If an institution offers any course or training in teacher education after the coming into force of the order withdrawing recognition under sub-sec. (1), or where an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University, or in any school, college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government."
(3.)On and from the date of enforcement of the Act, every institution, offering or intending to offer the course or training inteacher 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 S. 14 of the Act. In accordance with the said provision the respondent institution made an application for grant of recognition to the Bachelor of Education (vacation course). This application, having been rejected by the Northern Regional Committee of the council, the respondent had approached the High Court. Having regard to the Entry 66 of the List I of the SeventhSchedule of the Constitution, the High Court did record a conclusion that the Parliament has the legislative competence for enacting the Act with a view for achieving planned and co-ordinated development of theteacher education system. But so far as S. 17(4) of the Act is concerned, the High Court held that the Parliament cannot make law prescribing qualification for entry into the service under the State Government and such law can be made only under the Proviso to Article 309 of the constitution. In the opinion of the High Court, when NCTE cannot force a State or State funded institution to employ only teachers having a particular qualification like B. Ed. or B. P. Ed. or it cannot force the State Government for the employee to have B. Ed. degree then it cannot have power under any law to de-recognize any such degree for the purpose of employment and as such sub-sec.(4) of S. 17 is unconstitutional and ultra-vires of the Constitution. Having struck down S. 17 (4) of the Act, the High Court further directed the NCTE to issue certificate of recognition to the B. Ed. (vacation course) of the institution since the regulation of B. Ed. course imparted by the same institution was recognised by the council.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.