JUDGMENT
Nagendra Rai, A.C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.8.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge by which he has quashed the order dated 30.1.1999 passed by the State Government contained in Annexure 20 refusing to grant recognition to start a Teachers Training (B.Ed.) College and directed the respondent No. 4 National Council for Teachers Education, Eastern Region (hereinafter referred to as the Council) to consider the case of the respondent for its recognition on the basis of the details furnished by it in accordance with law without awaiting for no objection certificate of the State Government.
2. The factual matrix of the case are that the writ petitioner- respondent No. 1 is a registered society registered under the Societies Registration Act with an object inter alia to develop, uplift and promote the educational standard of rural areas so that they may be well equipped to serve their family members and the society in general. It established the respondent No. 2 Mirza Ghalib Teachers Training (B.Ed) College, Janipur, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the College) and applied before the State Government for recognition of the college in terms of the Bihar Non-Government Physical Training College (Control and Regulation) Act, 1982 and the matter remained pending. In the meantime, in 1993 the Parliament enacted the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with an object to achieve planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country, the regulations and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and of matter connected therewith. The Act came into force on 17.8.1995. In terms of the provision of the Act the respondent No. 1 and 2 submitted an application to the Director of the Council, Eastern Region, Bhuwaneshwar. The Council made the proper scrutinies and found that the college suffers from lack of minimum requirements and, accordingly, it was asked to comply with the deficiencies. The deficiencies were; absence of affiliation order from examining body i.e., University/ State Board from 1995-96 academic session, no objection certificate from the State Government, absence of land and building plans and a list of non-teaching staff with details of vacant posts and syllabus of course.
3. In spite of the communication of the aforesaid deficiencies and the reminder the respondents did not reply and accordingly the case of the institution was disposed of by an order dated 14.1.1999 as contained in Annexure 21 informing the writ petitioners-respondents to submit no objection certificate granted by the State and the order of affiliation by 3.2.1999, otherwise the case will be treated to be closed. It appears that in the meantime the State Government also by an order dated 30th January 1999 rejected the request of the writ petitioner-respondents for recognition of the institution.
4. The writ petitioners-respondents initially filed a writ application for a direction to consider the case of the College for recognition and for directing the State Government to recognize the College and allow the students to appear in the examination. But later on after passing of the aforesaid order the writ application was confined to quashing the aforesaid direction and for a direction to the Regional Committee to grant recognition in terms of Section 14 of the Act.
5. The stand of the Council-appellant is that as the petitioners did not file the no-objection certificate and other required documents their case was not considered and treated to be closed. There are only four Regional Committees throughout the country and they have to rely on somebody for being satisfied about the requirement as mentioned in the conditions, namely, details of financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and other conditions of the institution before granting it recognition, which are enumerated in Section 14(3) of the Act. It has made regulation in exercise of power under Section 32 of the Act on 29.12.1995, which requires in Clause 5(e) to submit an application for recognition with a no-objection certificate from the State or Union Territory in which the institution is located. As the institution in question did not fulfil the requirement of the aforesaid Clause 5(e) of the regulation, the committee was not in a position to grant recognition.
6. The learned Single Judge has allowed the claim of the writ petitioner-respondents on the ground that once the Central Act has been enacted the State Act with regard to the recognition being inconsistent becomes void and as such the recognition by the State Government was not a valid requirement and without that the Council has to consider the case of the writ petitioner- respondents and in that connection he has relied upon the three judgments of the Supreme Court i. e., Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Ors., , Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., and Jay a Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvanathapuram, Kerala State and Anr., , wherein it has been held that the State legislation falling under Entry 25 of List II to the extent it is in conflict with the Central Legislation or subordinate legislation under the same Entry 66 of List I, would be void.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the council appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge, has failed to take note of the fact that in terms of the regulations under the Act no objection certificate is required before considering the grant of affiliation and the requirement of no objection certificate is not under any State Act and as the petitioner-respondent No. 2 did not fulfil the same the Committee was justified in not considering its case for recognition. In other words, according to him, there was no question of the State Act being incomplete with the Central Act nor there was a question of obtaining a no objection certificate under the State Act. Thus, the very foundation given by the learned Single Judge for issuance of a direction is non-est in the eye of law.
8. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners-respondents on the other hand supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the council has to consider the matter in terms of the Act and the State has no role to play and accordingly the insistence to procure no objection certificate from the State Government is not a valid ground.
9. Section 14 of the Act provides that every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations. Section 15 contains similar provisions with regard to the institution intending to start any new course or training in teacher education. Section 32 gives a power to the Council to make regulation, Sub-clause (e) of Section 32(2) contains the form and the manner in which an application for recognition is to be submitted under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 and Sub-clause (f) of Section 32(2) contains conditions required for the proper functioning of the institution and conditions for granting recognition under Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 14.
10. The Council framed a regulation on 29.12.1995 in exercise of power under Section 32 of the Act. The relevant regulations 5(e) and (f) for the purpose of the present case needs to be quoted, which run as follows :
5(e) Every institution intending to offer a course or training in teacher education but was not functioning immediately before 17.8.1995, shall submit application for recognition with a no-objection certificate from the State or Union Territory in which the institution is located.
(f) Application for permission to start new course or training and/or to increase intake by recognized institutions under Regulation 4 above shall be submitted to the Regional Committee-concerned with no-objection certificate from the State or Union Territory in which the institution is located.
11. A bare reading, of the aforesaid provision shows that according to the terms of the regulation no objection certificate from the State Government is required and the Regional Committee has to be satisfied with regard to other requirements before considering the question of recognition. So the requirement of no objection certificate is not under any State Act but it is under the regulation itself.
12. It appears that the attention of the learned Single Judge was not drawn to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court dealing with the similar matter in the case of St. Jhons Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, NCTE, and Anr., , where the validity of regulation 5(e) and (f) framed by the Council was challenged as ultra vires of the provision of the Act. It appears that the relevant regulation has been amended on 6.6.2003, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure-D to the letters patent appeal, which inter alia fix a time limit for granting no objection certificate by the State Government and other conditions. In this connection it is relevant to refer paragraph 15 of the judgment which runs as follows :
Sub-section (3) of Section 14 casts a duty upon the Regional Committee to be satisfied with regard to a large number of matters before passing an order granting recognition to an institution which has moved an application for the said purpose. The factors mentioned in Sub-section (3) are that the institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfills such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education as may be laid down in the Regulations. As mentioned earlier there are only four Regional Committees in the whole country and, therefore, each Regional Committee has to deal with applications for grant of recognition from several states. It is therefore obvious that it will not only be difficult but almost impossible for the Regional Committee to itself obtain complete particulars and details of financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and other conditions of the institution which has moved an application for grant of recognition. The institution may be located in the interior of the district in a faraway State. The Regional Committee cannot perform such Herculean task and it has to necessarily depend upon some other agency or body for obtaining necessary information. It is for this reason that the assistant of the State Government or Union Territory in which that institution is located is taken by the Regulation 5(e) and (f) that the application made by the institution for grant of recognition has to be accompanied with an NOC form the State or Union Territory concerned. The impugned Regulations in fact facilitate the job of the Regional Committees in discharging their responsibilities.
13. The Apex Court has also held in the case that the provisions of the regulation are valid for the simple reason that there are only four Regional Committee throughout the country and they have to rely on somebody for being satisfied about the requirements as mentioned in the conditions. The State is also highly interested in the education and as such the requirement of no objection certificate before considering the case of recognition is not ultra vires.
14. The submission that there was no guideline for the State regarding the grant of no objection certificate was also negatived on the ground that enough guidelines have been given by the Council to the State by issuing a guideline on 2.2.1996 for issuance of NOC. However, the Apex Court had held that no objection granted by the State is not conclusive or binding and only the views expressed by the State will be considered by he Regional Committee while taking the decision on the application for grant of recognition. In this connection it is relevant to quote paragraph 19 of the judgment which runs as follows :
Regulation 6(ii) of these Regulations provides that the endorsement of the State/Union Territory Administration in regard to issue of NOC will be considered by the Regional Committee while taking a decision on the application for recognition. This provision shows that even if the NOC is not granted by the State Government or Union Territory concerned and the same is refused, the entire matter will be examined by the Regional Committee while taking a decision on the application for recognition. Therefore, the grant or refusal of an NOC by the State Government or Union Territory is not conclusive or binding and the views expressed by the State Government will be considered by the Regional Committee while taking the decision on the application for grant of recognition. In view of these new Regulations the challenge raised to the validity of Regulations 5(e) and (f) has been further whittled down. The role of the State Government is certainly important for supplying the requisite data which is essential for formation of opinion by the Regional Committee while taking a decision under Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act. Therefore, no exception can be taken to such a course of action.
15. Thus, in view of the settled law before recognition the Council has to call for a NOC but even if the NOC is refused or not granted the entire matter has to be considered by the Regional Committee. The report on no objection certificate is not conclusive and binding upon the Committee.
16. Admittedly, in this case ‘no objection certificate’ has been rejected by the State and now the matter has come within the knowledge of the Council and a copy of the same has been made available to the Council as it is appended in the writ application. Now the Council will consider the question of recognition in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of St. Jhons Teachers Training Institute (supra).
17. Thus, the view taken by the learned Single Judge that no objection certification is not necessary is not correct in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and the regulations.
In the result, the order of the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part.
S.N. Hussain, J.
18. I agree.