Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1229 (MP)

AMRIT VIDYA PEETH B. ED. COLLEGE v. STATE OF MP

2007-11-29

DIPAK MISRA, R.S.JHA

body2007
Judgment Dipak Misra, J. ( 1. ) Regard being had to the similitude of the gravamen of challenge in this batch of writ petitions, they are disposed of by a singular order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts in Writ Petition No. 12104/2007 are adumbrated herein. ( 2. ) The petitioner is a college founded and established by Prabhat Shiksha Evam Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Betul, a society registered under the Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam. The college has developed infrastructure as per the norms fixed by the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (for short the NCTE) for imparting education in B.Ed. Courses. The first respondent is a body constituted under Section 3 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for brevity the 1993 Act) and the respondent No. 2 is the Western Regional Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) situate at Bhopal and the said Committee has been constituted under Section 20 of the Act. The Committee has the power to acknowledge and process the applications submitted for recognitions to impart education in various courses in teacher education including B.Ed, and M.Ed, in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Committee is also empowered to grant recognition to eligible colleges to conduct B.Ed, courses. ( 3. ) It is contended that the Act has been brought into force with a view to achieve planned and coordinated development of teacher education system in the country and for regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standard in the teacher education system and for other matters connected therewith. A reference has been made to Section 14 of the 1993 Act which deals with the recognition of institution offering courses for training of teacher education. There is a postulate in the said provision that the institution offering or intended to offer a course or drawing for teacher education may apply for grant of recognition under the Act to the concerned regional committee in such form and in such manner as may be determined by Regulation. There is a postulate in the said provision that the institution offering or intended to offer a course or drawing for teacher education may apply for grant of recognition under the Act to the concerned regional committee in such form and in such manner as may be determined by Regulation. Sub-section (3) of Section 14 prescribes that the regional committee on receipt of the application from any institution under Sub-section (1) and after obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary shall satisfy itself whether the institution had adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfills such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course in teacher education as may be prescribed by NCTE. It is asserted that recognition is granted under Section 14(4) of the Act and the order granting recognition is published in the official gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, local authority, the State Government and the Central Government. Emphasis has been laid on Section 16(6) which prescribes that every examining body i.e. university on receipt of the order under sub-section (4) shall grant affiliation to the institution where recognition has been granted by the NCTE. It is contended that the grant of affiliation is merely a ministerial formality required to be done by the examining body and no discretion is left to the university by the Legislature. ( 4. ) The respondent No.l has framed regulations under Section 32(2) of the Act prescribing norms for recognition and procedure for submission of application and processing thereof. The regulations are called as NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2005 (in short 2005 Regulations) The first respondent has also in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-section (1) and Clause (o) of Sub-section (2) of Section 32 read with Sub-section (7) of Section 20 of the Act framed NCTE (Procedure To Be Followed By the Regional Committees) Regulations 1995 (for short the 1995 Regulations). It is put forth that the petitioner college through the society submitted the application in prescribed format complying the requisite norms to the respondent No.2 on 1.6.07 along with the requisite fee of Rs.40,000/-, land title certificate, copy of the approved building plan, FDR, necessary affidavit and undertaking and solvency etc. for grant of recognition for the academic year 2007-08. It is put forth that the petitioner college through the society submitted the application in prescribed format complying the requisite norms to the respondent No.2 on 1.6.07 along with the requisite fee of Rs.40,000/-, land title certificate, copy of the approved building plan, FDR, necessary affidavit and undertaking and solvency etc. for grant of recognition for the academic year 2007-08. The respondent No.2, the Committee entertained the application and after primary scrutiny allotted the Code No. APW 06273/223695 and sent the information thereof by letter dated 22.6.07. It is set forth that the petitioner did not receive the said letter but downloaded the details from website of the respondent No.2. The relevant extract of the same has been brought on record as Annexure P-3. The second respondent as per letter dated 22.6.2007 dispatched on 2.7.07 conveyed certain minor deficiencies. The petitioner in order to avoid delay made compliance without protest vide letter dated 18.7.07 as per Annexure P-4. As pleaded, despite the compliance the respondent did not take up any action and no communication was made. The petitioner inquired about the status of his application from the office of the respondent No.2 and he was informed that the decision to issue letter had been taken but formal letter in that regard has not been issued. It is contended that from the aforesaid aspect it would be manifest that the second respondent failed and neglected to process the petitioners application within the time stipulated under the Regulations and thereby the respondent No.2 had failed to discharge its statutory duties within the reasonable time. It is urged that by not acting within the reasonable time the Committee has shown complete negligence and in fact has conducted itself in a cavalier manner. Various provisions under the Regulations have been referred to how the Committee is required to work under the Regulations. ( 5. It is urged that by not acting within the reasonable time the Committee has shown complete negligence and in fact has conducted itself in a cavalier manner. Various provisions under the Regulations have been referred to how the Committee is required to work under the Regulations. ( 5. ) It is set forth in the writ petition that when no definite information was obtained by the petitioner from the office of the second respondent it received an information that the respondent No. 3, namely, the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development had issued a letter dated 20.8.07 to the first respondent conveying a direction purported to be issued under Section 29 of the Act to withhold the grant of recognition of the institution for courses or additional intake falling under the jurisdiction of the respondent NO.2. It is put forth that by virtue of the issuance of the aforesaid letter the respondent No.3 has stopped functioning of the respondent No.2 in an arbitrary manner as a consequence of which the second respondent has abandoned its statutory duties and obligation cast on it by the 1993 Act. In pursuance of the letter dated 20.8.07 the NCTE has issued letter dated 22.8.07 as contained in Annexure P-6 directing that the respondent No.2, the committee would not function until further orders. ( 6. ) It is averred that the petitioner institution has already applied for affiliation to the respondent No.5 the University the examining body, and No Objection Certificate from the State of Madhya Prdesh in accordance with law. It is also highlighted that as per the law No Ojbection Certificate is not necessary from the State Government but the respondent No.5, University has passed a resolution dated 30.12.06 holding that for affiliation the No Objection Certificate is required from the State Government. To avoid any technical objection the petitioner applied for the No Objection Certificate. The resolution passed has been brought on record as Annexure P-8. The petitioner by way of abandoned caution obtained the No Objection Certificate dated 18.5.0 6 as Annexure P -9. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.4, the State of Madhya Pradesh has authorised the respondent University to hold the counselling for B.Ed, courses for the entire State for academic session 2007-08 and accordingly the University is holding the counselling for all colleges. ( 7. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.4, the State of Madhya Pradesh has authorised the respondent University to hold the counselling for B.Ed, courses for the entire State for academic session 2007-08 and accordingly the University is holding the counselling for all colleges. ( 7. ) It is asseverated that the respondents Nb.l and 2 are statutory bodies constituted under the Act and hence, are required to act legally and for furtherance of achieving the object of the Act. It is also set forth that they are under obligation to act within a reasonable period of time and particularly before commencement of the academic session. It is also put forth that 1995 Regulations and the scheme under the provisions clearly stipulate that the respondents are bound to dispose of the applications expeditiously and the respondents are required in law after allotting code number to the petitioner college to process and decide the application in accordance with law within the time prescribed by regulation. It is put forth that the petitioners are entitled to be dealt with statutorily as they have complied with the norms fixed by the NCTE and their legitimate expectations cannot be annihilated by taking arbitrary steps. In this backdrop prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 20.8.2007 and to issue a mandamus commanding the respondent No.1 to immediately hold the meeting with the respondent No.2 and any other committee empowered and authorised to take the final decision on the application of the petitioner relating to academic session 2007-08. There is also a prayer to declare the resolution dated 30.12.2006 passed by the respondent No.5, the university requiring no objection certificate as illegal as such no objection certificate is not required as per the law laid down by the Apex Court. ( 8. ) A counter affidavit has been filed in Writ Petition No. 12198/2007 by the respondents No.1 and 2. Learned counsel for the parties fairly agreed that the same can be referred to, as basically this Court is required to dwell upon the legal issues. Be it noted, in certain cases it has been asseverated that the notices were issued to remove the deficiency within the statutory period of ninety days but some of the petitioners were not able to remove the same and, therefore, the application was not processed. Be it noted, in certain cases it has been asseverated that the notices were issued to remove the deficiency within the statutory period of ninety days but some of the petitioners were not able to remove the same and, therefore, the application was not processed. We would like to record here that the question of deficiency or compliance really does not require to be adverted to in this batch of cases. It is put forth that in the counter affidavit that on 21.8.2007 the Central Government had issued a direction under Section 29 of the Act that recognition not to be granted to the Teacher Training Institutes falling within the jurisdiction of Western Regional Committee of NCTE, till a comprehensive review is undertaken or till further orders whichever is earlier. The said decision has been brought on record as Annexure-R-1/2. It is the stand in the return that the Central Government is lawfully entitled to issue directions to the NCTE under Section 29 of the Act as the question of grant or refusal to grant recognition is a policy matter under the Act. It is setforth without recognition no institution can admit any student to any course, training or teacher education. Reference has been made to section 14 of the Act and Section 16 of the Act to highlight that the University shall not grant affiliation to the institution conducting a course or training in teacher education unless the institution has obtained recognition under Section 14 of the Act. ( 9. ) A return has been filed in this writ petition by the respondent-State stating, inter alia, that the relief is claimed against the NCTE and not against the State and further there has to be compliance of the NCTE Act and the Regulations of 2005 before granting recognition to any institution. The State has supported the action of the NCTE. ( 10. ) At this juncture it is worthwhile to state that in some cases counter affidavits have been filed by the University and also by the MP. Board of Secondary Education. It is their stand that affiliation is not a ministerial formality and the institutions are bound to take affiliation as provided under the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 wherein there are provisions and those provisions are bound to be followed. ( 11. Board of Secondary Education. It is their stand that affiliation is not a ministerial formality and the institutions are bound to take affiliation as provided under the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 wherein there are provisions and those provisions are bound to be followed. ( 11. ) In some of the cases, be it noted the recognition was granted for one academic year. Applications were filed for continuation of the recognition or to put it differently, for grant of recognition for subsequent year, namely, 2007- 08. It is urged in the said petition that they have complied with the formalities but the State Government has put a embargo. It is worth noting that the application is pending before the NCTE for grant of recognition. In some cases decision as regards recognition had been communicated but no formal order has been passed. It is also worth mentioning that in some cases interim orders were passed by learned single Judge of this Court which is as follows: "As an interim measure, it is directed that till further orders petitioner may be permitted to take part in counselling. Petitioner may admit students provisionally at their own risk without accepting fees from them. However, it is made clear that in case the Institutions accept fees from the students they may ready to face the consequences if the petition is decided against them. Learned counsel for the petitioner is hereby directed to implead concerning University as well as State Government as party to this petition. Let copy of the petition along with all the annexures be supplied to learned Govt. Advocate as well as to "Shri P.K. Kaurav, Advocate on or before 31st August, 2007. Learned counsel for the University shall intimate about the passing of this, order to the University." ( 12. ) At this juncture it is worthwhile to state that the matters relating to grant of recognition have been transferred from the Benches at Indore and Gwalior and an order was passed by Honble the Chief Justice that the matter should be heard by a Division Bench. Accordingly, the matters have been placed before us. ( 13. ) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India, Mr. Rakesh Johri along with Mr. Ashok Chakravorty, learned counsel for the NCTE, Mr. T.S. Ruprah and Mr. Accordingly, the matters have been placed before us. ( 13. ) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India, Mr. Rakesh Johri along with Mr. Ashok Chakravorty, learned counsel for the NCTE, Mr. T.S. Ruprah and Mr. Rakesh Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, Mr. Deepak Awasthi, learned Government Advocate for the State, Mr. K.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P.K. Kaurav and Mr. Tapan Trivedi, advocates for Barkatullah University, Bhopal/Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur/Jiwaji University, Gwalior/Hari Singh Gour University, Sagar/Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa. ( 14. ) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the cases have raised the following contentions: (i) The Union of India has no jurisdiction to issue such a direction as has been issued by letter dated 20-8-2007 under Section 29 of the Act. (ii) The instruction issued amounts to interference in the statutory functioning of the NCTE which is a central apex body and has to have independence in its functioning. (iii) the directions given are contrary to the norms of regulations framed by the NCTE and other statutory provisions inasmuch as the Act and the Regulations have the inherent prescription or uninterrupted and continuous functioning of the NCTE as well as the committees and they cannot be denuded of their powers. (iv) The interference made by the Central Government is contrary to Section 21 of the Act as the power vests with the NCTE only to terminate the regional committee. (v) The language used in Section 30 of the Act confers the power on the Central Government to supersede the Council under certain contingencies and hence, the order passed in the case at hand is not in consonance with the aforesaid provision. (vi) If Section 17 of the 1993 Act is scrutinised in proper perspective it will clearly show that the regional committee has the power to grant recognition to an institution and is also empowered to withdraw recognition but no power can be bestowed on the Central Government to interfere in such a manner as that would tantamount to scuttle the statutory functioning of the committee which is impermissible. Assuming the Central Government has issued such a direction it should have made an alternative arrangement but that having not been done the direction is unsustainable. Assuming the Central Government has issued such a direction it should have made an alternative arrangement but that having not been done the direction is unsustainable. (vii) Section 29(1) of the Act deals with issue of general policy-decision but the direction at hand cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as a policy-decision. (viii) Any direction in contravention of the provisions of the statute cannot withstand scrutiny and has to pave the path of extinction. (ix) The direction issued by the Central Government is contrary to the report of the Central Government on "Department of Secondary and Higher Education" published by the Government of India on 25-01-2006 which has been referred in paragraph 70 of the decision rendered in State of Maharashtra vs. Sant Dhyaneshwar Shiskhan Shastra Mahavidyalaya, 2006 AIR SCW 2048. (x) The institutions would suffer immensely due to long pendency of the matter before the Committee and keeping in view the interim order passed by this Court to the effect that students be admitted without fees and no claim of equity should be protected in the legitimate interest the respondents should be directed to accept admission of the students in the institutions. ( 15. ) Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India submitted that though the Union of India has not filed a counter affidavit but the letters are self explanatory and relate to exercise of power and, therefore, it is fundamentally a pure question of law which arises for consideration in this batch of cases. It is his submission that the Central Government has power under Section 29(1) of the Act to issue directions in relation to policy matters and if the scheme of the Act and the regulations framed thereunder are properly scrutinised there can be no trace of doubt that review of grant of recognition to various institutions can be a matter of scrutiny by the Government of India because recognition cannot be granted to an institution unless it fulfills the conditions as provided under the Act and the Regulations. It is also put forth by him that the object of the Act is to achieve planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system through out the country and hence, a decision for grant of recognition has to be taken keeping the object of the Act in view. It is also put forth by him that the object of the Act is to achieve planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system through out the country and hence, a decision for grant of recognition has to be taken keeping the object of the Act in view. The learned counsel further submitted that it is the duty of the Council to determine and maintain the standards in the teacher education system and to conduct surveys and studies relating to various aspects of teacher education to co-ordinate and monitor teacher education and its development in the country and, therefore, the power of reviewing the grant of recognition has to be treated as a policy decision and, therefore, the power has been rightly exercised. It is propounded by him that the direction issued as ad interim in measure and cannot be claimed as a part of legitimate expectation. It is also proponed by him that there has been no abolition of the Committee and scrutiny by the Union of India cannot be regarded as an antithesis to the powers conferred under the statute. ( 16. ) Mr. Deepak Awasthi, learned Government Advocate for the State submitted that obtainment of no objection certificate is mandatory requirement and it cannot be said that the State has no say in the matter. ( 17. ) Mr. T.S. Ruprah and Mr. Rakesh Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the Board of Secondary Education,M.P., Mr. K.P.Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P.K. Kourav, Mr. Tapan Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for various Universities submitted that before granting affiliation they are required to follow the provision of the M.P. Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 and submission of the petitioners that they have only a ministerial job to do is sans substratum. ( 18. ) Before we advert to the statutory provisions it is apposite to refer to the letter issued by the Central government to NCTE. ( 18. ) Before we advert to the statutory provisions it is apposite to refer to the letter issued by the Central government to NCTE. The said letter reads as under: New Delhi 20th August, 2007 Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development Department of School Education and Literacy To The Chairperson, National Council for Teacher Education, 1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 Subject : Directions under Section 29 of the NCTE Act, 1993 to withhold the grant of recognition in institutions/Courses/additional intake falling under jurisdiction of Western Regional Committee of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Sir, It has come to notice of the Department of School Education and Literacy that there has been uneven and disproportionate growth in the number of recognitions granted to various courses and institutions in the states falling under the Western Regional Committee of NCTE and that while granting recognition, the actual demand of teachers in particular states has been totally ignored. 2. In these circumstances, it is felt appropriate to undertake a comprehensive review of the situation for taking necessary corrective measures. Therefore, as directed by the competent authority, NCTE is hereby directed under Section 29 of the NCTE Act, 1993 that recognition may henceforth not be granted to any teacher training institutions/courses/additional intake falling within the jurisdiction of the Western Regional Committee of NCTE, till a comprehensive review is made or till further orders, whichever is earlier. 3. Necessary instructions to this order may accordingly be conveyed to the Western Regional Committee of NCTE. A compliance report may be sent to this Department at the earliest. Yours sincerely, (Simmi Choudhary) Deputy Secretary to Government Govt, of India Tel: 2307327 ( 19. ) It is also necessary to reproduce the communication made by the NCTE to the committee: National Council of Teacher Education A Statutory Body of the Government of India Most immediate File No.49-19/2007/NandS/NCTE August 22, 2007 To Dr. OVS Sikarwar, Regional Director Western Regional Committees Manas Bhawan (Near AIR) Shyamla Hills, Bhopal: 162 002 Sub : Directions under Section 29 of the NCTE Act 1993 to withheld the grant of recognition to institutions / courses / additional intake, falling under the jurisdiction of Western Regional Committee of NCTE. OVS Sikarwar, Regional Director Western Regional Committees Manas Bhawan (Near AIR) Shyamla Hills, Bhopal: 162 002 Sub : Directions under Section 29 of the NCTE Act 1993 to withheld the grant of recognition to institutions / courses / additional intake, falling under the jurisdiction of Western Regional Committee of NCTE. Sir, I am directed to say that directions have been received from the competent authority under Section 29 of the NCTE Act, 1993 on August 21, 2007 that recognition may henceforth not be granted to any teacher training institutions / courses/additional intake falling within the jurisdiction of the Western Regional Committee of NCTE till a comprehensive service to be undertaken or till further orders, whichever is earlier. 2. In view of the above, you are directed to ensure that the above directions are complied with and immediate steps are taken to ensure that no action taken for grant of recognition and also no meeting of the Western Regional Committee is held. The Chairperson and members of the Western Regional Committee may immediately be suitably informed in this regard. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (V.C. Tewari) Member Secretary" ( 20. ) Presently to the statutory provisions of the Act and the provisions of regulations governing the field. ( 21. ) Section 12 of the Act occurring in Chapter III deals with functions of the Council. The said provision enunciates that it is the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education and for the determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education and for the purposes of performing its functions under the Act. The Council is required to undertake surveys and studies relating to various aspects of teacher education and publish the result thereof. It is the duty of the Council to recommend to the Central Government and State Government, Universities, University Grants Commission and recognised institutions in the matter of preparation of suitable plans and programmes in the field of teacher education. It is the statutory duty of the Council to co-ordinate and monitor teacher education and its development in the country. It is the duty of the Council to recommend to the Central Government and State Government, Universities, University Grants Commission and recognised institutions in the matter of preparation of suitable plans and programmes in the field of teacher education. It is the statutory duty of the Council to co-ordinate and monitor teacher education and its development in the country. In addition thereto, it is also within the domain of the council to lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in schools or in recognised institutions; to lay down norms for any specified category or 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; to lay down guidelines for compliance by recognised institutions, for starting new courses or training and such other guidelines including to take necessary steps to prevent commercialization of teacher education. ( 22. ) Section 14 of the Act deals with recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education. The said provision is reproduced below: "14. Recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education." (1) Every institutions 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 institutions concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall,- (a) if it is satisfied that such institutions has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institutions for a course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such institutions, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulations; or (b) if it is of the opinion that such institutions does not fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing recognition to such institutions 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 institutions for making a written representation." (4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institutions 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 subsection (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." ( 23. ) Section 15 of the Act provides for permission for a new course or training by recognised institution. To appreciate the scenario in proper perspective it is apt to quote the said provision: "15. Permission for a new course or training by recognised institution." (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. Permission for a new course or training by recognised institution." (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 subsection (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-clause (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." ( 24. ) Section 16 deals with the affiliating body to grant affiliation after recognition or permission by the Council. The said provision is as under: "16. ) Section 16 deals with the affiliating body to grant affiliation after recognition or permission by the Council. The said provision is as under: "16. Affiliating body to grant affiliation after recognition or permission by the Council." 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." ( 25. ) Section 20 deals with the power of the Council to establish regional committees. Section 21 confers the power on the Council to terminate the Regional Committee. Section 29 provides for directions by the Central Government. The said provision being relevant for the present purpose is quoted below: "29. Directions by the Central Government." (1) The Council shall, in the discharge of its functions and duties under this Act be bound by such directions on questions of policy as the Central Government may give in writing to it from time to time. (2) The decision of the Central Government as to whether a question is one of policy or not shall be final." ( 26. ) Section 30 confers power on the Central government to supersede the Council. As lot of emphasis has been laid on the said provision by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, we think it apposite to quote the same: "30. Power to supersede the Council." (1) If the Central Government is of the opinion that the Council is unable to perform, or has persistently made default in the performance of the duties imposed on it by or under this Act or has exceeded or abused its powers, or has wilfully or without sufficient cause, failed to comply with any direction issued by the Central government under section 29, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, supersede the Council for such period as may be specified in the notification. Provided that before issuing a notification under sub-section the Central Government shall give a reasonable opportunity to the Council to show cause why it should not be superseded and shall consider the explanation and objections, if any, of the Council. (2) Upon the publication of a notification under sub-section (1) superseding the Council- (a) all the Members of the Council shall, notwithstanding that their term of office had not expired, as from the date of supersession, vacate their offices as such Members; (b) all the powers and duties which may, by or under the provisions of this Act be exercised or performed by or on behalf of the Council shall, during the period of supersession be exercised and performed by such person or persons as the Central Government may direct; (c) all property vested in the Council shall, during the period of supersession, vest in the Central Government. (3) On the expiry of the period of supersession for such further period as it may consider necessary; or (a) extend the period of supersession for such further period as it may consider necessary; or (b) re-constitute the Council in the manner provided in section 3. ( 27. ) Section 32 deals with the power of the Council to make regulations. The said provision is reproduced hereunder: "32. ( 27. ) Section 32 deals with the power of the Council to make regulations. The said provision is reproduced hereunder: "32. Power to make regulations." (1) The Council may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, generally to carry out the provisions of this Act." (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely :- (a) the time and the place of the meetings of the Council and the procedure for conducting business thereat under sub-section (1) of section 7; (b) the manner in which and the purposes for which persons may be co-opted by the Council under sub-section (1) of section 9; (c) the appointment and terms and conditions of service of officers and other employees of the Council under sub-sections (1) and (2) respectively of section 19; (d) The norms, guidelines and standards in respect of- (i) the minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher under clause (d) of section 12; (ii) the specified category of courses or training in teacher education under clause (e) of section 12 ; (iii) starting of new courses or training in recognised institutions under clause (f) of section 12; (iv) standards in respect of examinations leading to teacher education qualifications referred to in clause (g) of section 12; (v) the tuition fees and other fees chargeable by institutions under clause (h) of section 12; (vi) the schemes for various levels of teacher education, and identification of institutions for offering teacher development programmes under clause (1) of section 12; (e) the form and the manner in which an application for recognition is to be submitted under sub-section (1) of section 14; (f) conditions required for the proper functioning of the institution and conditions for granting recognition under clause (a) of subsection (3) of section 14; (g) the form and the manner in which an application for permission is to be made under sub-section (1) of section 15; (h) conditions required for the proper conduct of a new course or training and conditions for granting permission under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 15; (i) the functions which may be assigned by the Council to the Executive Committee under sub-section (1) of section 19; (j) the procedure and the quorum necessary for transaction of business at the meetings of the Executive Committee under subsection (5) of section 19; (k) the manner in which and the purposes for which the Executive Committee may co-opt persons under sub-section (6) of section 19; (1) the number of persons under clause of sub-section (3) of section 20; (m) the term of office and allowances payable to members under sub-section (5) of section 20; (n) additional functions to be performed by the Regional Committee under sub-section (6) of section 20; (o) the functions of, the procedure to be followed by, the territorial jurisdiction of, and the manner of filling casual vacancies among members of, a Regional Committee under sub-section (7) of section 20; (p) any other matter in respect of which provision is to be or may be, made by regulations." ( 28. ) It seemly to state here that the NCTE vide Annexure-R/2, 22-8-2005 has framed regulations laying down procedure for grant of recognition for norms, standards, guidelines and teacher training programmes. The said regulation has been framed under Section 32(2) of the Act. Regulation 4 deals with eligibility criteria of the institutions which are eligible for consideration of their applications under these regulations. Regulation 5 deals with manner of making application. Regulation 7 deals with processing of the application. Regulation 8 deals with the conditions for grant of recognition and the Regulation 9 deals with the financial management. ( 29. ) The seminal question that emanates for consideration is whether the letter that has been issued by the Central Government, which have been reproduced herein above could have been issued under Section 29 of the Act. ( 30. ) In this context we may refer with profit to the decision rendered in Food Corporation of India and Others Vs. Bhanu Loadh and Others, (2005) 3 SCC 618 wherein their Lordships were dealing with the power conferred on the Central Government under Section 6 (2)of the Food Corporation Act, 1964. The said provision deals with the management of Food Corporation. Section 12 of the said Act deals with the power of the Central Government to employ officers and other employees of the Corporation. Section 12-A of the Act empowers the Central Government to transfer certain types of government employees, serving in the Department of the Central Government dealing with food cr any of its subordinate to FCI. Section 45 of the Act invests power in FCI to make regulations. In the aforesaid case the FCI had issued an advertisement for direct recruitment to the posts of Joint Managers/Deputy Managers in the Corporation. The process of recruitment for the post of Joint Manager was completed and the select list of the candidates was finalised with the approval of the Executive Committee of the Board of Management of FCI. At that juncture, the Government of India, Ministry of Food, issued a directive, purportedly in exercise of power under Section 6(2) of the Act imposing a complete ban on the recruitment process. The said directive was challenged before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and a learned single Judge came to hold that the said directive was within the ambit and scope of Section 6 of the Act. The said directive was challenged before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and a learned single Judge came to hold that the said directive was within the ambit and scope of Section 6 of the Act. A Letters Patent Appeal was preferred against the order of the learned single Judge which was also summarily dismissed. However, the Gauhati High Court posing a question to the effect whether the Government of India has any lawful authority to interfere with the internal administration of FCI, particularly relating to the matter regarding internal management viz. Appointment and service of its staff came to the conclusion that internal management was not within the scope of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 6 of the Food Corporation Act, 1964. In the writ appeal the Division Bench concurred with the view expressed by the learned single Judge. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the FCI preferred a Special Leave Petition. Their Lordships of the Apex Court addressed to the issue whether the Central Government could have issued a directive under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act which has the effect of putting an embargo on the direct recruitment of employees. Their Lordships answered the issue in the following terms. "12. In our view, the words of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act are very material and direct that the Board of Directors in discharging its functions "shall act on business principles" having regard to the "interests of the producer and consumer" and shall be guided by "such instructions on questions of policy" as may be given to it by the Central Government. First, the expression "business principles" is one of widest import. We see no reason as to why the policy of recruitment of officers/staff, which would obviously have serious financial impact on the Corporation, is not subsumed under this expression. Secondly, the Board of Management is required to have regard to the interest of the "producers and the consumers", and not merely of the officers and employees of FCI. Finally, the Board is required to discharge all its functions and be guided by the instructions on questions of policy, which may be given to it by the Central Government. Secondly, the Board of Management is required to have regard to the interest of the "producers and the consumers", and not merely of the officers and employees of FCI. Finally, the Board is required to discharge all its functions and be guided by the instructions on questions of policy, which may be given to it by the Central Government. Questions of policy could be, not only with regard to the organisation of FCI, its management and function, but also with regard to its employment policy, recruitment and many other details which would, in the long run, affect the interests of the consumers/producers for whom alone FCI is established under the Act. Testing it on this anvil, we find no difficulty in holding that the directive dated 21-8-1995 followed by the directive dated 6-11-1995 are well within the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act. The directive dated 21-8-1995 indicates that the policy was not to have any creation / upgradation of posts of any level except where completely unavoidable. The policy was that "the existing vacancies shall not be filled up by fresh recruitment", and that there shall be no further revision in the conditions of service without the prior approval of the Central Government. The policy directive issued on 6-11-1995 was a sequel and highlighted something being done contrary to the Regulations. While the maximum age prescribed under the Recruitment Rules is 35/40 years for the posts concerned, departmental candidates in the age of 52-53 years were proposed to be appointed. Even assuming that there is a power of relaxation under the Regulations, we think that the power of relaxation cannot be exercised in such a manner that it completely distorts the Regulations. The power of relaxation is intended to be used in marginal cases where exceptionally qualified candidates are available. We do not think that they are intended as an "open sesame" for all and sundry. The wholesale go-by given to the Regulations, and the manner in which the recruitment process was being done, was very much reviewable as a policy directive, in exercise of the power of the Central Government under Section 6(2) of the Act" . ( 31. We do not think that they are intended as an "open sesame" for all and sundry. The wholesale go-by given to the Regulations, and the manner in which the recruitment process was being done, was very much reviewable as a policy directive, in exercise of the power of the Central Government under Section 6(2) of the Act" . ( 31. ) In this context we may usefully refer to the observations of the Apex Court in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan ShastraMahavidyalaya (supra): "It is thus clear that the Central Government has considered the subject of Secondary Education and Higher Education at the national level. The Act of 1993 also requires Parliament to consider Teacher Education System throughout the country. NCTE, therefore, in our opinion, is expected to deal with applications for establishing new B.Ed, colleges or allowing increase in intake capacity, keeping in view 1993 Act and planned and co-ordinated development of teacher-education system in the country. ( 32. ) Regard being had to the aforesaid pronouncements of law, if we look at the language employed under section 29 of the Act we have no scintilla of doubt that the Central Government could have issued such a direction as has been issued inasmuch as sub-section (1) of Section 29 make it crystal clear that the Council is bound by such directions on questions of policy as the Central Government may give in writing from time to time and further sub-section (2) of Section 29 lays a postulate that the decisions of the Central Government as to whether the question is one of the policy or not shall be final. Be it noted in the letter dated 20.8.2007 there is mention of the fact that it has come to the notice of School Education and Literacy that there has been uneven and disproportionate growth in the number of recognition granted to various courses of the Institutions in the State falling under the Western Regional Committee of NCTE and while granting recognition the actual demand of teachers in the particular State has been totally ignored. It is also perceivable from the letter that the Department has felt it appropriate to make comprehensive review of the situation for taking necessary corrective measures. It is also perceivable from the letter that the Department has felt it appropriate to make comprehensive review of the situation for taking necessary corrective measures. The tenor of the letter and the grounds mentioned therein and keeping in view the language employed in section 29 of the Act there can be no trace of doubt that the Central Government has taken a decision which by no stretch of imagination can not be said to be a policy decision under the scheme of the Act. It is because the purpose of the Act is to provide for establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieve planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country. That apart, Regulation 4 deals with eligibility and Regulation 8 deals with the conditions for grant of recognition. We have already referred to Section 12 of the Act. In view of the object and reasons and the role assigned to the Council and the power conferred on the Central Government we come to the irresistible conclusion that the direction issued by the Central Government is within the ambit and sweep of its powers and not de hors the statutory exercise of power. ( 33. ) Once we have come to hold that the Central Government has the power to issue such a direction as the policy decision, the other submissions viz. that the Committee has become non-functional; that there is an abandonment of statutory functioning; that there is ostracization of authority by a statutory body to perform its duties; and that there is an abdication of exercise of powers; and that there is a creation of vacuum in the absence of alternative mode, pale into insignificance. Further, the contention that the Regional Committee could have been terminated by the Council is of no substance ( 34. ) At this stage we think it apposite to refer to the stand and stance of the learned counsel for the petitioners that No Objection Certificate from the State demanded by the University to grant affiliation is contrary to the decision rendered in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan ShastraMahavidyalaya (supra). In the aforesaid case a three-Judge Bench in paragraph 78 has held as under:- "78. In the aforesaid case a three-Judge Bench in paragraph 78 has held as under:- "78. In our opinion, the observations that the provisions of Section 82 and 83 of the Maharashtra University Act are "null and void" could not be said to be correct. To us, it appears that what the High Court wanted to convey was that the provisions of Sections 82 and 83 would not apply to an institution covered by 1993 Act. As per the Scheme of the Act, once recognition has been granted by NCTE under section 14(6) of the Act, every university (examining body) is obliged to grant affiliation to such institution and sections 82 and 83 of the University Act do not apply7 to such cases." ( 35. ) Mr. Deepak Awasthy, learned Government Advocate and learned counsel appearing for various Universities have submitted that the obtaining of "No Objection Certificate is a condition precedent for grant of affiliation. In the case at hand, as is manifest, not a singular institution has been granted recognition under Section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 14 provides that every order granting or refusing permission to a recongized 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 proper action to such institution and the concerning examining body, local authority or the State Government or the Central Government. It is not in dispute that the applications for grant of recognition to the institution or for other courses are pending before the Committee of the NCTE. In view of the aforesaid the issues relating to requirement of obtainment of grant of No Objection Certificate or grant of automatic affiliation need not be addressed by us as they are premature at this stage and accordingly, we refrain from doing so. ( 36. ) Presently to the legitimate expectation and interest. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the institutions have given admission and if eventually the institutions are granted recognition the students should be permitted to appear in the examination. ( 36. ) Presently to the legitimate expectation and interest. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the institutions have given admission and if eventually the institutions are granted recognition the students should be permitted to appear in the examination. Learned single Judge of this Court while passing the interim order had clearly stated that institutions may admit students provisionally at their own risk without accepting fees from them and if they accept fees from the students they would be ready to face the consequences if the petition is decided against them. In view of the aforesaid order no equity can ever flow in favour of the institutions. We would like to place it on record that an institution which is desirous of imparting B.Ed and M.Ed, education or introducing a course meant for teachers is under obligation to be aware of the provisions contained under the 1993 Act. The said Act has been engrafted with a sacrosanct purpose. Grant of recognition is the condition precedent before any institution proceeds in any other matter like affiliation from the examining body. Whether the affiliation has to be granted automatically or not we have already refrained from dwelling upon the said issue, but, an onerous one, it is inconceivable how an institution without recognition can nurture the idea to admit students. A day-dreamer can build a castle in the air or for that matter castle in Spain, but it is absolutely inapposite on the part of aspirants registered bodies or institutions to admit students and pyramid the foundation relying on the bedrock of legitimate expectation that the students would be treated as students who have been admitted in such institutions in such courses which are valid in law. An educational institution has to conduct itself in an apple pie order. It has to maintain the sacredness of the concept behind imparting education. They are under obligation to keep in mind that commercialization of course under 1993 Act is impermissible. Quite apart from the above, it is totally imprudent and in a way quite audacious to build a superstructure without an infrastructure. If we allow ourselves to say so, perception has been blinded and in the ultimate eventuate a cataclysm has been unwarrantedly invited. We may say without any fear of contradiction that it is a perceptible deception and fraud on law. If we allow ourselves to say so, perception has been blinded and in the ultimate eventuate a cataclysm has been unwarrantedly invited. We may say without any fear of contradiction that it is a perceptible deception and fraud on law. Ergo, the stance that they have to be given the benefit of legitimate expectation and their interest should be protected, is devoid of any substance and we unhesitatingly repel the same. ( 37. ) One of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners deserves to be considered. It is submitted that the Central Government cannot take its own time to review the scenario. As is perceptible, the Central Government has issued a letter dated 20.8.07. The grounds for issue of instructions are that there has been uneven and disproportionate growth in the number of recognitions granted to various courses and institutions in the States falling under the Western Regional Committee of the NCTE and while granting recognition, the actual demand of teachers in particular states has been totally ignored and hence, a comprehensive review of the situation for taking necessary corrective measures were necessitous. Because of the said situation directive has been issued to the NCTE not to grant recognition to any teacher training institution intake falling within the jurisdiction of the Western Regional Committee of NCTE till a comprehensive review is made or till further orders whichever is earlier. The institutions which are before us may have filed applications and their applications may have been processed. The NCTE has a statutory role. As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan ShastraMahavidyalaya (supra) the ojbect of the Act is that NCTE is required to deal with applications for establishing new B.Ed, colleges or allowing increase in intake capacity keeping in view 1993 Act and planned and co-ordinated development of teacher-education system in the country. As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan ShastraMahavidyalaya (supra) the ojbect of the Act is that NCTE is required to deal with applications for establishing new B.Ed, colleges or allowing increase in intake capacity keeping in view 1993 Act and planned and co-ordinated development of teacher-education system in the country. Under Section 12 of the Act the Council is duty bound to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education and for the determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act from many a spectrum, undertaking surveys and studies relating to various aspects of teacher education and many a contour As the Central Government is making a comprehensive review of the same we need not to dwell upon the same. However, we direct the Central Government to take final decision by end of January, 2008. ( 38. ) Consequently, the writ petitions are dismissed without any order as to costs.