C. M. Nayar, J. ( 1 ) THE present judgment will dispose of two writ petitions C. W. P. No. 4538/96 (Rohini Education Society vs. national Council for Teachers Education and C. W. P. No. 1949/96 (Seema Mathur and others v. National Council for Teachers Education and others ). The first petition was filed inter alia for the relief that an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated June 14, 1996 passed by respondent No. 2 refusing recognition for Elementary Teachers Education Course (for short ETE) as well as for quashing the Order dated 20th September, 1996 passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner society. The impugned orders are filed as Annexure P-44 and P-46 respectively. ( 2 ) THE second petition C. W. No. 1949/96 was filed earlier in point of time by the students who have been enrolled with the Rohini Education Society (hereinafter REFERRED TO as `the society ) for quashing the action of the respondents in denying them permission to appear in the second semester examination of ETE Course (Academic year 1995-96) and for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit them to appear in the above said course. Notice was issued in this writ petition but interim relief was declined by an order passed by this Court on May 14, 1996 which may be reproduced as under: @subpara = "heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have prayed that they may be allowed to appear in the Second Semester Examination of Elementary Teachers Education Course (Academic Year 1995-96) starting from 15th May, 1996 provisionally till disposal of the petition. The Institute, Rohini Educational Society where the petitioners are studying is not yet recognised and the matter is pending for consideration before respondent No. 1. The said respondent has issued show cause on 11 May, 1996 (Annexure P-12 to the petition ). The said Institution (Rohini Educational Society) had earlier filed Civil Writ Petition No. 4512/95 which was disposed of by this Court by a detailed judgment rendered on February 6, 1996. The learned Judge even at that stage had directed that it was only after the recognition was accorded to the Institute that the students would be allowed to appear in the examination. The learned Judge even at that stage had directed that it was only after the recognition was accorded to the Institute that the students would be allowed to appear in the examination. The recognition is yet to be granted by the respondents and in view of the settled law, as reported in the judgments of the Supreme Court in N. M. Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another 1986 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 166 and St. John s Teacher Training Institute (for women), etc, etc, v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others etc, etc. JT 1993 (4) S. C. 78, no interim relief can be granted to the petitioners and they cannot be permitted to appear in the examination. The application is accordingly dismissed. " SUBSEQUENTLY, after the passing of the order on May 14, 1996 respondent No. 2 considered the pleas of the petitioners for recognition of their society for conducting the course as REFERRED TO above and rejected the prayer by an order made on June 14, 1996 for the following reasons: " (I) The Institution does not possess any land. (II) Teaching has been done without the use of the teaching learning materials which is against the principles of good teaching. (III) The Institution has utterly inadequate number of regular staff-three teachers and no principal for 100 pupils admitted-resulting in a very high teacher pupil ratio of 1:33 instead of 1:12, as per the prescribed norms and thereby adversely affecting. (IV) The Institution has admitted students in the ETT Course (1995-96) in violation of procedure, eligibility criteria and total strength in the first year, prescribed by the Govt. of NCT, Delhi and in the norms laid down by the NCTE. The Institution admitted 100 pupils in the first year course against the prescribed 50 pupils, admitted eight students who secured less than 50% marks in 10+2 examination in did not hold any selection test for admission. BESIDES, the Institution is paying salary to the staff in cash and not through cheques. The Institution which was apprised of this deficiency as contained in the report of the visiting team did not furnish any reply. Thus even the functioning of this institution does not inspire confidence. NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that recognition to Geeta Rattan Jindal Elementary Teacher Training Institute, New Delhi be refused. The Institution which was apprised of this deficiency as contained in the report of the visiting team did not furnish any reply. Thus even the functioning of this institution does not inspire confidence. NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that recognition to Geeta Rattan Jindal Elementary Teacher Training Institute, New Delhi be refused. ALSO ordered that a copy of this order be published in the Official Gazette. " THE Society filed the statutory appeal under Section 18 (1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter REFERRED TO as `the Act ). The said appeal was considered by the Appellate Authority and the refusal of recognition was upheld. The following reasons were given in support of the rejection: "i) The Appellant claims that the Government of NCT, Delhi having satisfied that there was separate accommodation exit and entrance and these being the only condition imposed by that government for the NTT, granted permission for running ETT course; the application form, other guidelines and instructions circulated by the NCTE did not mention that the ETTI should have separate land of its own and the inspection team was satisfied that sufficient and suitable accommodation was availableto the ETTI. The actual position is that the ETT course is being run in the Senior Secondary School building, the land for which apparently (the Appellant not having a copy of the letter allocating the land at the time of his appearance for representation) was allotted by the concerned authorities for a specific institution. The NCTE norms and form prescribed by it mentioned about the requirement of possession of land by the concerned institute at several places leaving no doubt about its implication and importance. The inspection team has come to an unequivocal conclusion that the institution does not possess any land of its own. In the standard norms of recognition enclosed to the letter No. ZXIII/839 dated the 23rd June, 1995 from the Deputy Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi addressed to the Appellant, wherein Essentiality Certificate to establish an ETE Institute was granted, the first requirement is adequate land. It is, therefore, established that the institute does not possess any land, a requirement for the grant of recognition. (II) The Appellant claims that since special care was taken in the maintenance of teaching-learning equipment it looks fresh and unused giving a wrong impression. It is, therefore, established that the institute does not possess any land, a requirement for the grant of recognition. (II) The Appellant claims that since special care was taken in the maintenance of teaching-learning equipment it looks fresh and unused giving a wrong impression. It is noted that besides the observations of the inspection team about non-utilisation of the equipment procured, the inspection team of Delhi SCERT, which visited the institute on the 31st October 1995 (copy of the observations of the team having been enclosed to the appeal) also did not specifically make any reference to the use of any equipment in teaching the classes. What is important is not procurement of equipment as such, but its actual utilisation and use in the class room on which the inspection team gave its view after an the spot inspection of the institute. This deficiency is therefore established. (III) The Appellant s claim that they have eight teachers in position exclusively for ETTI on the basis of copies of appointment letters enclosed to the appeal and payment of salaries register shown in the course of personal representation seems correct. However, the deficiency relating to the absence of an exclusive principal for the ETTI still persists. A principal for the ETTI is a requirement in accordance with the NCTE s Norms for recognition. @subpara = (iv) The Appellant s claim that the admission of 100 students in the academic session 1995-96 and holding of admission test was in the full knowledge of the Govt. of NCT, Delhi, who did not raise any objection seems to be correct. However, the appellant has violated its own prescribed norm of admitting students with a minimum of 50% marks in the aggregate in Senior Secondary (10+2) examination. The applicability of an order of the Delhi High Court regarding the powers of the Director of Education in matters of admission to the Nursery Teachers Training Course, to the present case raised by the Appellant does not therefore arise. The Appellant had admitted as many as 8 students in ETTI course who secured less than 50% marks in 10+2 examination in violation of its own prescribed norms. This is also in violation of NCTE s norms. The Appellant had admitted as many as 8 students in ETTI course who secured less than 50% marks in 10+2 examination in violation of its own prescribed norms. This is also in violation of NCTE s norms. TAKING an overview of the matters, even though possession and fulfillment of norms is an important and essential preliminary to the granting of recognition, these cannot by themselves constitute the sole criteria for grant of recognition. It is not a matter of right for an institution to claim recognition because it has fulfilled all the physical norms. In the context of the statutory mandate given to the NCTE for ensuring planned and coordinated development of teacher education system and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system, one of the important steps in the process of recognition is an on the spot visit of an expert team to see not only the fulfillment of physical requirements but also the academic and pedagogical attainment and environment that the institute provides. " THE learned counsel for the petitioners contends as follows: (A) The society has been issued `essentiality Certificate under Rule 44 of the lhi School Education Rules, 1973 for opening a Institute vide order dated June 23, 1995. The reading of the order will indicate that the permission was granted to run the Institute for a period of three years with effect from the date of issuance of this certificate i. e. June 23, 1995. The students were admitted on that assurance, therefore, the Institute as established by the Society could not be wound up prior to the expiry of the period of three years as it will be violative of the provisions of Section 14 (5) of the Act as every Institution which is subsequently refused recognition shall only discontinue the course from the end of academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition. This interpretation of the provision is reasonable, logical and will save the careers of students who have already since been admitted for the course on the basis of the communication dated June 23, 1995. There are large number of candidates which have been admitted and cited at pages 92 to 96 (Annexure P. 28 to the writ petition ). The list has been approved and signed by the Education Officer, Department of Education, Delhi Administration. There are large number of candidates which have been admitted and cited at pages 92 to 96 (Annexure P. 28 to the writ petition ). The list has been approved and signed by the Education Officer, Department of Education, Delhi Administration. (B) The impugned orders refusing recognition are based on malafide, extraneous and illegal grounds and cannot be sustained. For example, there is no requirement of law that the petitioner Society must own land which is one of the considerations for not according recognition. The Act does not provide any such condition. ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents had vehemently argued that the norms for recognition in respect of Elementary Teachers Education (ETE) course have been carefully framed and examined by the concerned body and it will notbe open for this Court to reconsider and reappraise the whole issue on facts to arrive at a decision contrary to the one as approved by an Expert Body. In any case, following flaws have been pointed out with regard to the factors which have culminated in the passing of the impugned order: (A) The possession of land by the Institution is a policy decision which will only imply that there is sufficient space to conduct classes and for involving the students in extra-curricular activities. The only land which is available with the petitioner is one which is being already used for running its Senior Secondary School. In view of this, the petitioner society has applied to Delhi Development Authority for allotment of land which will indicate that sufficient land is not in possession of the petitioner for continuance of the course. (B) The Institution has admitted students in ETT course 1995-96 in violation of the recognised procedure and eligibility criteria. There was no written test and 100 candidates were admitted in the first year against the prescribed 50 candidates and 8 students were admitted who secured less than 50 per cent marks in 10+2 examination. (C) The evaluation of the Experts, such as, that the teaching has been done without the use of the teaching learning materials and there are inadequate number of regular staff has been examined on the basis of available material on record and there is no ground to make a contrary assessment. AT this stage, the relevant provisions of the Act may be reproduced. AT this stage, the relevant provisions of the Act may be reproduced. Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Act read as follows: "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 from 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 to such institution for reasons to be recorded in writing: PROVIDED that before passing an order under sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall proved 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. (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 sub-section (4),- (A) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or (B) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused. 15 (1) Where any recognised institution intends to start any new course or training in teacher education, it may make an application to seek permission therefor to the Regional committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations. (2) The fees to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) On receipt of an application from an institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the recognised institution such other particulars as may be considered necessary, the Regional Committee shall,- (A) if it is satisfied that such recognised institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory, and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper conduct of the new course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting permission, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulation; 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 permission to such institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing: PROVIDED that before passing an order refusing permission under sub-class (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the institution concerned for making a written representation. (4) Every order granting or refusing permission to a recognised institution for a new 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 recognised institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority, the State Government and the Central Government. 16. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no examining body shall on or after the appointed day,- (A) grant affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution; or (B) 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. " IT is established from reading of the above provisions that an elaborate procedure has been prescribed by the Act to consider the case of recognition which is to be examined by an Expert Committee. The provisions of Section 3 of the Act will indicate that "national Council for Teacher Education" has to be established to examine such matters which has been so established by Notification issued on 17th August, 1995 by the Central Government. The reading of this Notification will show that 43 members have already been nominated who are Experts in the field of education. THE composition of the Regional Committee in terms of the Notification mentioned above under Section 23 of the Act was made on February 6, 1996 and Office Order in this regard reads as follows: "nof F-29-3/95 NCTE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION BHARAT SCOUTS BUILDING 16, I. P. ESTATE RING ROAD NEW DELHI-110 002 February 6, 1996 OFFICE ORDER IN pursuance of Notification No. F. 8-9/95 NCTE dated 13 December, 1995 and Notification No. F. 28-14/95-NCTE dated 22 January, 1996, the National Council for Teacher Education hereby constitutes in terms of section 20 (3) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act 1993, the Northern Regional Committee as under: 1. Composition and Membership Constituency A) Member to be nominated by the council Name of the member Smt. Sharada Jain Sandhan Research Centre, C-196, Van Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur-302004 B) One representative each of the States and Union Territories of the Region as determined by the Regulation viz. , Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh Chandigarh and Delhi. Composition and Membership Constituency A) Member to be nominated by the council Name of the member Smt. Sharada Jain Sandhan Research Centre, C-196, Van Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur-302004 B) One representative each of the States and Union Territories of the Region as determined by the Regulation viz. , Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh Chandigarh and Delhi. C) Six persons to be nominated as determined by the Regulations. 1. Prof. S. N. Singh 66, Brahmananad Colony, Varanasi : 221 005 2. Prof. R. N. Mehrotra 3/189, Prem Nagar, Agra: 282 003. 3. Prof. M. A. Khader Regional Institute Education, (NCERT), Ajmer. 4. Shri Chatar Singh Mehta, Quarter No. 1 Inside Darbar School, Near Gopi Nath Marg, Jaipur. 5. Dr. J. N. Joshi Department of Education, Punjab University, Chandigharh, Punjab 6. Prof. C. L. Kundu Vice Chancellor, Himachal Pradesh University, Summer Hills, Shimla THE meeting of the Committee was held in Jaipur on May 11, 1996. The minutes of the meeting as translated in English may be reproduced as under: "minutes OF IInd MEETING OF NRC/ncte, JAIPUR DT 11. 5. 96