1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2701 OF 2008
1. Gangadhar s/o Nilkanth Shende
and anr. ..Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Union of India, through its
Secretary and ors. ..Respondents
Mr. Anand Parchure for petitioners.
Mr. S.K. Mishra for respondent no.1.
Mr. N.W. Sambre, Government Pleader for respondent
no.2.
Mr. C.S. Kaptan for respondent nos.3 and 4.
Mr. R.L. Khapre for respondent no.5.
Mr. F.T. Mirza for respondent nos.6,7, 32, 34, 36
and 37.
Mr. A.S. Kilor for respondent no.8.
Mr. M.R. Johrapukar for respondent no.9.
Mr. N.N. Thengre for respondent no.10
Mr. S.J. Khandalkar for respondent nos.11 and 12.
Mr. R. Ghughe and Mr.V. Rakh for respondent nos.13
to 25.
Mr. S.S. Ghate for respondent no.26
Mrs. M. Barabde for respondent no.27.
Mr. N. Vyawhare for respondent no.28.
Mr. M.G. Gawande for respondent no.33.
Mr. Kalwaghe for respondent no. 35.
Mr. S.A. Gordey for respondent no.38.
Mrs. S.W. Deshpande for respondent nos.39 and 40.
Mr. V.D. Gunale for respondent nos.42 to 46.
Mr. S.R. Nanaware for intervenor.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
2
CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE &
A.H. JOSHI, JJ.
Date of Reserving : December 15, 2008.
Date of Pronouncement : January 07, 2009.
JUDGMENT: (Per B.H. Marlapalle,J.)
1. This petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution came to be filed before this Court on
19/6/2008 and after issuing notices to the respondents
interim orders were passed from time to time including
the order dated 29/8/2008 and by the said order the
earlier order dated 13/8/2008 was modified as under:
“……We now permit the N.C.T.E. not only to
process the proposals received for grant or
refusal of the permission but is also entitled
to take a decision whether the permission to
open new D.Ed. College should be granted or
refused. However, it is made clear that the
permissions, if any, granted to open new D.Ed.
Colleges shall be subject to the result of the
present writ petition and such colleges shall
not admit the students without permission of
this Court.”
2. This order came to be challenged by the Akhil
Maharashtra Navin Adhyapak Vidyalaya Sansthachalak
Sanghatna (Respondent No.5) in SLP (Civil) No. 28012-
28013/08 and on 1/12/2008 the SLP came to be dismissed
in terms of the following order passed by the Supreme
Court:-
“Permission to file SLP dismissed. As the
SLPs are against interim order, we are not
inclined to pass any order. Accordingly, the
special leave petitions are dismissed.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
3
However, as the matters relate to the
admission of the students in D.Ed. Colleges,
we request the High Court to dispose off the
applications pending before it at an early
date.”
3. This petition was, therefore, heard from time
to time and the National Council for Teacher Education
(the Council for short) has filed reply as well as
additional reply and as per our directions the report
submitted by the Kaul Committee as well as the
original files pertaining to the applications which
are allowed by the Western Regional Committee (the
Committee for short) of the Council, have also been
placed before us. The writ petition came to be
registered as a public interest litigation petition as
per the administrative order dated 14/10/2008. Some
of the respondents have filed written notes of
arguments.
4. Hence, Rule.
5. By consent of the parties, the Rule is made
returnable forthwith. All the respondents waive
service. We have also noted that the order dated
29/8/2008 was incorporated in all the recognition
orders which are the subject matter of challenge
before us and the Respondent No.5 association claims
to represent all the new colleges which have been
granted recognition during the pendency of this
petition. Hence, no separate notice is necessary to
those colleges which are not before us and it was
necessary for all of them to apply for being impleaded
as additional respondents in case they wanted to be
heard in this petition.
6. The petitioners, who are the teachers and
permanent residents of Chandrapur district have prayed
for the following reliefs:-
“a) to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or
any other appropriate writ, order or direction
to respondent no.2 (State of Maharashtra) to::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
4make a need based assessment and based
thereupon prepare a Master Plan for proposingopening of new D.Ed. Colleges within the
State of Maharashtra, and
b) to direct the respondent – NCTE to act
according to such recommendations only by the
State Government and grant permission to new
D.Ed. Colleges only on that basis.
7. As per the order dated 29/8/2008 passed by
this Court and noted hereinbefore, the Council was
permitted not only to process the proposals for grant
of refusal of permission but also to take decisions on
these applications with a further condition that the
permissions, if any, granted to open new D.Ed.
Colleges shall be subject to the result of the present
writ petition and such Colleges shall not admit the
students without permission of this Court. It is,
thus, clear that we are also required to consider the
legality of the permissions granted by the Council
through the Committee. Admittedly, none of these
Colleges who have been granted permission/ recognition
have admitted any students as of now by obtaining
leave of this court.
8. On 9/9/2008 this Court had directed the
Regional Director (Western Region) of the Council to
file affidavit giving the following details:-
a) When the State Government has taken a
categorical stand that there is no need to
establish any new D.Ed. Colleges in the State
of Maharashtra and the existing strength of
D.Ed. Colleges is adequate enough to cater to
the need of people, whether the NCTE has
undertaken any independent survey and on the
basis thereof, has come to the conclusion that
the stand taken by the State Government does
not show the correct picture and there is a
need to establish new D.Ed. Colleges in the
State.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
5
b) What is the criteria and procedure on the
basis of which the applications for grant of
permission submitted by individuals are
processed by NCTE?
c) If the nation as a whole is taken as one
unit, some States are having more population
than the other smaller States, in such a
situation, how the NCTE decides the number of
D.Ed. Colleges necessary to cater to the
needs of that State. Is there any Government
Resolution, Circular or provisions of NCTE Act
or Rules made therein which can throw some
light on this aspect?
d) Whether the NCTE has taken into
consideration the percentage of literacy in
the State of Maharashtra before granting
permission to the new D.Ed. Colleges and
since the whole country is treated to be one
unit, whether this criteria is made applicable
to the other States while granting recognition
to the new D.Ed. Colleges?
e) Whether the Diploma in Education obtained
in the State of Maharashtra is recognised in
other States of our country and vice versa.
9. At this stage we also deem it appropriate to
reproduce the following observations made by this
Court in the order dated 9/9/2008 as they are relevant
for deciding the writ petition:-
“………We are aware that the NCTE being the
parent body is not bound by the opinion of the
State Government. However, the opinion of the
State Government cannot be brushed aside
lightly unless the NCTE, on the basis of
independent evidence, has come to the
conclusion that there is a need of 349 new
D.Ed. Colleges in the whole State of
Maharashtra and, therefore, the affidavit must
contain the said procedure or details of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
6
survey, if any, conducted in this regard by
the NCTE.”
10. Though a statement was made before this court
on 9/9/2008 that the Council has granted recognition
to 349 new D.Ed. Colleges, the additional affidavit
in reply filed by the respondent nos.3 and 4 in
compliance with the order passed by this Court on
18/10/2008 makes it clear that the Committee has
granted recognition to in all 291 new D.Ed. Colleges
during its 101st to 109th meetings. In its additional
affidavit dated 12/9/2008 the Council has stated that
it had prospective plan for the years 2003-07 but in
exercise of powers and functions under Sections 14 and
15 of the NCTE Act, there is no requirement of need
based survey in any State or Union Territory. The
criteria and procedure for processing the applications
to grant recognition are given in Sections 14 and 15
of the NCTE Act read with NCTE (Recognition, Norms and
Procedure) Regulations, 2007. The decision to open
new D.Ed. institutions has nothing to do with the
population of the concerned State and the only
criteria are that whether the applicant institution
fulfils the prescribed norms and standards or not.
The grant of recognition under Section 14 and
permission under Section 15 was not based on the need
for further D.Ed. Colleges in the particular locality
in the State of Maharashtra and the only criteria are
fulfilment of the prescribed norms and standards. The
Committee has further submitted that it has no concern
with the percentage of the literacy in the State of
Maharashtra and it is concerned with the overall
percentage of literacy in the country. It has been
further clarified that the D.Ed. obtained from any
institutions recognised by the Council is valid in all
the States and Union Territories just as any
Engineering Course and is valid in all the States and
Union Territories. The respondent nos.3 and 4 have
heavily relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Sant
Dnyaneshwar Sikshan Sanstha and ors. [2006 (9) SCC
01].
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
7
11. We must also refer to the connected writ
petitions filed during the pendency of the instant
petition. Writ Petition No.4070 of 2008 filed by two
social workers (one from Bhandara and the other from
Nagpur) supports the instant petition in asmuchas it
prays for directions to the Council to grant
recognitions to the new D.Ed. colleges only if
recommended by the State of Maharashtra and to prepare
a master plan in coordination with the State of
Maharashtra for starting the new D.Ed. colleges. In
addition it prays for quashing and setting aside the
recognitions granted after 23/11/2007 to new D.Ed.
colleges. Whereas Writ Petition Nos.5017, 5040 and
5270 of 2008 pray for directions to the respondents to
permit the petitioner Societies to admit students in
the D.Ed. course pursuant to the recognitions granted
to them by respondent no.4, which implies the
modification of the order passed in the instant
petition on 29/8/2008.
12. The National Council for Teacher Education
(the NCTE) was established in the year 1973 as an
advisory body on matters pertaining to the teacher
education and was accorded statutory status by the
National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (the
NCTE Act for short). The Council came into existence
as a statutory body on August 8, 1995. The NCTE Act
mandates the Council to achieve planned and
co-ordinated development of the teacher education
system throughout the country. Thus, the NCTE with
its statutory status is expected to;
a) determine, maintain and co-ordinate the
standard in teacher education;
b) control proliferation of sub standard
institutions;
c) promote and conduct innovation and
research;
d) establish suitable system for taking
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
8
education of teacher; and
e) reduce the gap between the demand and
supply of teachers.
13. The Council is established under Section 6 of
the NCTE Act and its functions are set out under
Section 12 of the said Act, some of which and relevant
to decide this petition, are as under:-
a) to undertake surveys and studies relating
to various aspects of teacher education and
publish the result thereof;
b) to make recommendations to the Central and
State Governments, Universities, University
Grants Commission and recognised institutions
in the matter of preparation of suitable plans
and programmes in the field of teacher
education;
l) to formulate schemes for various levels of
teacher education and identify recognised
institutions and set up new institutions for
teacher development programmes;
m) to take all necessary steps to prevent
commercialisation of teacher education;
n) to perform such other functions as may be
entrusted to it by the Central Government.
14. The Council has other committees as its bodies
viz. a) The Executive Committee and b) The Regional
Committees.
. The Executive Committee is constituted under
Section 19 whereas as per Section 20 the Council shall
by notification in the Official Gazette establish four
Regional Committees, namely:-
i) the Eastern Regional Committee;
ii) the Western Regional Committee;
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
9
iii) the Northern Regional Committee; and
iv) the Southern Regional Committee.
15. Under Section 21 of the NCTE Act the Council
has the power to terminate any Regional Committee for
the reasons stated in sub section 1 of the said
Section. Similarly, as per Section 30 of the NCTE
Act, the Central Government has the powers to
supersede the Council. Under Section 31 of the NCTE
Act, the Central Government has powers to make the
Rules to carry out the provisions of the Act and under
Section 32 therein the Council has the powers to make
Regulations, generally to carry out the provisions of
the said Act.
Section 29 of the NCTE Act reads as under:-
“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.”
. Under Section 14 of the NCTE Act, the Regional
Committee has the powers to pass an order granting
recognition to new institutions in teachers training
or to refuse recognition to such institution for the
reasons to be recorded. Every order granting or
refusing recognition to an institution for a course or
training in teacher education under sub section 3 of
that Section shall be published in the Official
Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate
action to such institutions and to the concerned
examining body, the local authority or the State
Government and the Central Government. Section 15 of
the NCTE Act deals with permission for a new course or
training by a recognised institution. The Regional
Committee has the powers to grant or refuse such
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
10
permission.
. Any person aggrieved by an order under Section
14 or Section 15 of the NCTE Act may prefer an appeal
to the Council within such a period as may be
prescribed, as per Section 18(1) and thus the orders
granting or refusing permission under Sections 14 and
15 are appealable under Section 18, of the said Act.
16. The Government of India issued a notification
dated 3/3/2003 under Section 20 of the NCTE Act and
set up four Regional Committees and we are concerned
with the Western Regional Committee at Bhopal (the
Committee) which has the jurisdiction for the States
of Chhatisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra and the Union Territories of Dadra, Nagar
Haveli and Diu.
17. The petitioners have referred to the letter
dated 21/8/2007 written by the Ministry of Human
Resources Development, Government of India to the
Council and subsequent letter dated 22/8/2007 written
by the Council to the Regional Director of the Western
Regional Committee (WRC) as well as the subsequent
letter dated 22/11/2007 by the Government of India,
Ministry of Human Resource Development to the
Chairperson of the Council giving directions under
Section 29 of the NCTE Act. As per the petitioners,
by the letter dated 21/8/2007 the Government of India
issued directions to the Council under Section 29 of
the NCTE Act to withhold the granting of recognition
to the institutions/courses under the jurisdiction of
WRC till a comprehensive review was undertaken or till
further orders, whichever was earlier. The
petitioners state that on 23/8/2007 the Government of
India passed an order for an inquiry to be conducted
in the affairs of the WRC and a Committee consisting
of Ms. Anita Kaul – Joint Secretary, Department of
School Education and Literacy, Shri Virendra Kumar –
Under Secretary and Shri K. Salil Kumar – Section
Officer was constituted. On the basis of the report
submitted by the said Committee, the Government of
India issued directions vide its order dated
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
11
22/11/2007, under Section 29 of the NCTE Act and
advised the Council to implement the recommendations
contained in the report with the following specific
directions:-
a) The WRC, Bhopal will process all pending
applications ensuring, however, that it
scrupulously takes into account the views of
the State Government on the issue of sanction
or rejection of applications for recognition.
In case, WRC, Bhopal differs with the views of
the State Government, it shall record specific
reasons in writing in such case and submit a
special report to NCTE headquarters;
b) NCTE shall expedite the study on the demand
and supply of teachers/teaching capacity
specially for the State of Maharashtra,
Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh and;
c) The recommendations in respect of
amendments to NCTE Act and its Regulations
shall be carefully examined in consultation
with Ministry of Law.
The petitioners allege that these directions issued by
the Central Government have not been implemented by
the Council and the recognitions granted by it through
its Western Regional Committee are in breach of the
said directions and thus in violation of Section 29 of
the Act.
18. It is contended by the petitioners that in the
State of Maharashtra, the number of D.Ed. Colleges
have mushroomed and thousands of persons who have
acquired the D.Ed. qualifications have remained
unemployed for years together, on account of the fact
that the demand for such primary school teachers is
much less than the candidates who pass out from these
Colleges. It has been urged before us that the
Council or the Committee has not undertaken the demand
– supply study and WRC has been entertaining the
applications for granting recognition to the new D.Ed.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
12
Colleges which, as per the petitioners, has given rise
to the commercialisation in education. The
petitioners have also emphasised that the State
Government, right from the year 2005 onwards, has been
consistently writing to the Council as well as the WRC
not to grant any further recognition to the D.Ed.
Colleges on the ground that the existing D.Ed.
Colleges produce more than the required trained
teachers for the primary schools and in fact thousands
of such D.Ed. qualified persons have remained
unemployed during the last few years. The petitioners
contend that the WRC has failed to take into account
these ground realities and has been granting
recognitions to new D.Ed. Colleges despite of
opposition by the State Government and such colleges
have already reached a point of saturation.
. The main thrust of the petitioners’ arguments
is based on the order passed by the Government of
India on 22/11/2007 issuing directions under Section
29 of the NCTE Act to the Council in respect of policy
decisions and the petitioners contend that the said
order does not permit the Council or the WRC to grant
recognition to new D.Ed. Colleges unless the WRC has
scrupulously taken into account the view of the State
Government and if the WRC differs with the view of the
State Government it shall record specific reasons in
writing in such cases and submit a special report to
the Council. They further state that the pending
applications could not have been considered unless the
Council had undertaken the status survey of demand and
supply of teachers/teaching capacity in the State of
Maharashtra and the directions given by the said order
dated 22/11/2007 have been violated by the Council and
more particularly the WRC. It is further submitted
that the WRC could not have decided all these
applications and it was duty bound to merely submit a
special report to the Council.
19. Mr. C.S. Kaptan, the learned counsel for the
respondent nos.3 and 4 has raised a preliminary
objection by referring to the scheme of Section 18 of
the NCTE Act which provides for appeals and submitted
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
13
that the petition is not maintainable when the
statutory remedy of appeal has been provided under the
Act to any person aggrieved by an order made under
Section 14 or 15 of the said Act. This preliminary
objection has also been supported by the learned
counsel appearing for the private respondents – the
institutions which have received the recognition
orders passed by the respondent no.4 and the
respondent no.5 is an association representing all the
institutions which have received the recognition
orders from the respondent no.4 and the said orders
are the subject matter of scrutiny in this petition.
However, when we called upon Mr.Kaptan to find out
whether the Council is ready to re-consider the
impugned orders of granting recognition by the WRC
under its appellate powers under Section 18 of the
NCTE Act, by treating this petition as an appeal, Mr.
Kaptan submitted that he has no such instructions and,
therefore, he would not be able to make any statement.
Whereas the learned counsel for the private
respondents opposed this suggestion on the grounds
that the Committee has granted them recognition by
following the regulations framed under Section 32 of
the NCTE Act and applicable at the relevant time.
They further submitted that the State Government
either failed to give any opinion on their
applications submitted to WRC or furnished an opinion
opposing the applications without giving any reasons
and, therefore, the Committee was justified in
considering all these applications as per the decision
taken by it in its 100th meeting held on 17/12/2007 to
19/12/2007.
. In the said meeting the letter dated
23/11/2007 written by the Council to the WRC was
considered and the Committee laid down the following
norms to consider the pending applications for
recognition:-
(a) If there is any positive recommendation
from the State Government, recognition/
permission will be granted as per the NCTE
Regulations;
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
14
(b) If the Government has not communicated any
positive or negative remarks within 60 days
from the issuance of the letter from the WRC
to the concerned State Government, cases will
be considered on merit basis;
(c) In case of the negative recommendation
without any justification, cases will be
considered on merit basis;
(d) If the State Government’s negative
recommendations are there in respect of a
particular institution with justification and
in the opinion of the Committee the
justification is genuine, the cases will be
rejected. The intimation of such cases will
be sent to the NCTE headquarters.
(e) The WRC differs with the negative reasons/
opinion of the State Government, cases will be
forwarded to the NCTE headquarters.
20. Mr. Kaptan pointed out that out of 291
impugned recognitions granted by the WRC, in 159 cases
no recommendations were received from the State
Government whereas in the remaining 132 cases the
recommendation as received from the State Government
was only “No” and there was no justification provided
in opposing these 132 cases. Mr.Kaptan, therefore,
relied upon clause (c) above in the decision taken by
the WRC and submitted that it rightly proceeded to
decide the pending applications and granted
recognition in favour of 291 institutions and no fault
could be found with the said decision of the WRC. In
132 cases where recommendation was in the negative but
without any justification by the State Government,
these cases have been considered on merit by the WRC
and allowed whereas in the remaining 159 cases the
State Government did not communicate any positive or
negative remarks within the stipulated period of 60
days and, therefore, the WRC proceeded to consider
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
15
these cases on merits as per clause (b) above. Mr.
Kaptan urged before us that it was not necessary for
the WRC to submit all the pending applications to the
Council under clause (d) or (e) of the above stated
norms framed by it.
21. The learned counsel for the private
respondents urged before us that the Committee is
required to decide the applications as per the
regulations applicable for the relevant year and if
the State Government failed to submit its
recommendation within the stipulated period or
submitted negative remarks without any justification,
the Committee was justified in considering the
applications on merits, namely the compliance made of
the requirements under clause 7 of the Regulations.
It was further contended that the letter dated
23/11/2007 written by the Council to the Committee
cannot be termed as directions under Section 29 of the
NCTE Act by the Central Government. In support of
this contention, it was submitted before us that the
directions, if any, were not in the name of the
President of India and they were not authenticated by
any authorised officer of the Government of India and,
therefore, they cannot be called as directions within
the meaning of Section 29 of the NCTE Act. The norms
finalised by the WRC in its 100th meeting to consider
the pending applications were rightly formulated on
the basis of the regulations applicable for the
relevant year and, therefore, no fault could be found
with the decision of the WRC in allowing 291
applications for recognition. Mr. Kaptan, the
learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 as well
as the learned counsel for the private respondents
have strongly relied upon the decision of the Supreme
Court in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Sanstha
Mahavidyalaya (Supra). They also submitted that if
the State Government was aggrieved by the recognitions
granted, it was necessary for it to file an appeal
under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, but the State has
not done so and hence its justification to oppose the
opening of new D.Ed. Colleges does not deserve to be
taken into consideration.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
16
22. Mr. Ghughe, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent nos. 13 to 25 submitted that the
petitioners have no locus standi to file this petition
in public interest and the petition does not, in fact,
involve any public interest. He alleged that the
petitioners are trying to canvass their personal
vested interests and they do not have any locus standi
to challenge the actions of the Council or its
Committee. He has relied upon the following decisions
of the Supreme Court, and submitted that the petition
is required to be dismissed as not maintainable:-
(1) Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. M.A. Rasheed
and ors. [(2004) 4 SCC 460]
(2) R & M Trust Vs. Koramangala Residents
Vigilance Group & ors. [(2005) 3 SCC 91]
(3) T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (98) Vs.
Union of India & ors. [(2006) 5 SCC 28]
. Mr. Khapre, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent no.5 association submitted that the
letter dated 22/8/2007 cannot be termed as legal
directions or directions within the meaning of Section
29 of the NCTE Act. He further submitted that the
Council cannot have the powers to decide the
application for recognition and if it is allowed to do
so, the right to appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE
Act is taken away. In this regard, he placed reliance
on the decision in the case of Kamla Devi vs. Khushal
Kanwar and another [AIR 2007 SC 663]. He further
submitted that as long as there are students seeking
admissions to the D.Ed. Colleges newly recognised,
the opposition of the State Government to such
colleges is irrelevant and the Council or Committee is
not obliged to consider the same.
. As per Mr. Gordey, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent no. 38 there is no
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
17
provision under the Regulations to reject the
application for recognition on the grounds that there
was no requirement to start D.Ed. Colleges as per the
opinion of the State Government. He referred to the
Scheme 14 of the NCTE Act and submitted that any
opinion of the State has no relevance in considering
the recognition by the WRC and so long as the
requirements of the said Section as well as the
Regulations framed by the Council under Section 32 of
the said Act are satisfied, the applications are
required to be allowed despite the opposition by the
State Government. In this regard, he placed reliance
on the decision in the case of State of Orissa and
ors. vs. Prasana Kumar Sahoo [AIR 2007 SC 2588].
23. Mr. Mirza, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent nos.6,7, 32, 34, 36 and 37 submitted
that he represents the minority institutions and as
per him, Article 30 of the Constitution of India has
granted the right to all such institutions to
establish and run educational institutions of their
choice and the applications submitted by such
institutions cannot be rejected either by the WRC or
the Council. He has also relied upon Article 77 of
the Constitution as well as Section 10 of the National
Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act,
2004 (“the Minority Institutions Act” for short). As
Mr.Mirza, the rights of the minority institutions to
open and run educational institutions cannot be
restricted by any opinion of the State Government
opposing to grant recognitions and in any case the
“need” to open D.Ed. Colleges in the State of
Maharashtra is irrelevant so long there are minority
students seeking admissions in such colleges.
24. At the outset, it requires to be noted that
the minority institutions, which have been granted
recognition to start a new D.Ed. College out of the
291 impugned recognitions in the instant petition, had
submitted applications for recognition under Section
14 of the NCTE Act and the Regulations framed
thereunder and as applicable for the relevant year in
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
18
which the application was submitted. We are not
dealing with any applications submitted by such
institutions either under Section 10 or Section 10A of
the Minority Institutions Act. As per Section 10 of
the Minority Institutions Act, any person who desires
to establish a Minority Educational Institution may
apply to the Competent Authority for grant of No
Objection Certificate for the said purpose and the
Competent Authority shall on perusal of the documents,
affidavits or other evidence, if any, and after giving
an opportunity of being heard to the applicant, decide
every application so filed as expeditiously as
possible and grant or reject the application, as the
case may be. Subsection (3) of Section 10 provides
for a deeming provision for grant of No Objection
Certificate to the applicant-society and as per
Subsection (4) of Section 10, the applicant shall be
entitled to commence and proceed with the
establishment of the Minority Educational Institution
on grant of No Objection Certificate, in accordance
with the Rules and Regulations. Whereas Section 10A
of the Minority Institutions Act provides for seeking
affiliation by such institution to any University of
its choice subject to such affiliation being
permissible under the Act under which the said
University is established. It is not the case of any
of the minority institutions which are before us that
any one of them had submitted an application seeking
No Objection Certificate under Section 10 or
affiliation under Section 10A of the Minority
Institutions Act and, therefore, those institutions
cannot rely upon the said provisions. In the instant
petition, we are not dealing with the right or the
protections available to the Minority Educational
Institutions under the Constitution of India. The
recognitions granted by the Council through its
Committee to 291 institutions are a subject matter of
scrutiny in the instant petition and as per the
petitioners, the Committee was not justified in
completely overlooking the factor of need to establish
new D.Ed. Colleges in the State of Maharashtra and
that the Committee has blindly and without application
of mind granted such recognitions. The petitioners
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
19
also claim that the Council through its Committee
could not have acted in breach of the specific
directions issued by the Central Government and as
reflected in the communication dated 22/11/2007, in
the matter of granting recognition to the new D.Ed.
Colleges in the State of Maharashtra. Article 30(1)
of the Constitution states that all minorities,
whether based on religion or language, shall have the
right to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice. However, the issue of
granting recognition to any such Minority Educational
Institution like a college or any other institution of
higher education is undoubtedly governed by the
provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994,
the Maharashtra Universities of Health Sciences Act,
1998, the All India Council For Technical Education
Act, 1987 and/or All India Medical Council Act, 1956
as the case may be. Similarly, granting recognition
to a new D.Ed. College, even though established by a
Minority Educational Institution, is covered under
Section 14 of the NCTE Act and, therefore, such
institutions cannot claim that the issue of granting
recognition is an absolute right. Granting of
recognition to such Minority Educational Institutions
is covered by their respective statutory provisions
and in the instant case by the NCTE Act and,
therefore, it requires to be scrutinised strictly
under the provisions of the Act. Hence, we do not
agree with Mr. Mirza that the recognitions which are
granted to open new D.Ed. Colleges by the Minority
Educational Institutions cannot be scrutinised by us
in the instant petition.
25. Coming to the issue of locus of the
petitioners to file this petition in public interest
is concerned, we have noted that the petitioners
themselves are the teachers and they are seeking to
bring to the notice of this court the gross
illegalities in granting recognitions to new D.Ed.
Colleges by the Council through its Committee in the
State of Maharashtra and without considering the need
based assessment to start such colleges. If the
Council, which is a statutory body, is alleged to have
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
20
failed in complying with the directions of the Central
Government and thus acted in breach of the provisions
of Section 29 of the NCTE Act, it becomes a matter of
public law to be decided in public interest. The
petitioners have made attempts to bring to the notice
of this court that the Council through its Committee
has acted in breach of the directions issued by the
Central Government under Section 29 of the NCTE Act in
granting recognitions to new D.Ed. Colleges and that
too when such colleges are being opposed by the State
Government consistently during the last few years on
the ground that there is already a massive
unemployment amongst those who have obtained the D.Ed.
qualification. We are satisfied that the petitioners
are not espousing their personal cause or the cause of
any private institute engaged in running a D.Ed.
College and there are no malafides which could be
attributed to them in seeking to challenge the actions
of the Council and its Committee in granting
recognitions to new D.Ed. Colleges. The petitioners
are not attempting to vindicate any personal interest
or gain or publicity or for that matter any private
interest in seeking to challenge the decision of the
Committee to grant recognitions to new D.Ed. Colleges
despite the State Government opposing any further new
D.Ed. Colleges. In short, we are convinced that the
petition is pro bono publico, that is it has been
genuinely filed in public interest and it seeks to
redress a genuine public wrong/injury and is not
founded on personal vendetta or to seek publicity.
We, therefore, reject the contentions that the
petitioners do not have a locus to file the instant
petition and that it cannot be termed as a petition in
public interest. None of the decisions relied upon by
Mr.Ghuge are applicable to hold that the petition is
required to be rejected on the preliminary points
advanced by him.
26. We must also deal with the issue of
maintainability raised by Mr.Kaptan, the learned
counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4. As per him when a
statutory remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the
NCTE Act is available to any aggrieved person
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
21
including the petitioners, a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable
and this Court should not entertain the writ petition
and instead relegate the petitioners to the remedy of
appeal before the Council. We make it clear that we
are not deciding the merit of the order of granting
recognition to the new D.Ed. colleges and we are
concerned only with the issue as to whether the said
recognitions are in breach of the directions issued by
the Central Government under Section 29 of the NCTE
Act and vide its order dated 23/11/2007. The said
directions were issued to the Council and not to the
Committee. The impugned recognitions have been
granted by the Committee acting as a subordinate body
of the Council and we are required to consider whether
the Council has failed to implement the directions
issued by the Central Government when the said
directions are binding on the Council. Thus when the
challenge raised in the petition is against the
omissions of the Council or its failure to implement
the policy decisions / directions of the Central
Government, the Council cannot decide the appeals and,
therefore, we are not impressed by the submissions of
Mr.Kaptan that the petitioners should be relegated to
the remedy of appeal before the Council.
. We also note at this stage that the order
passed by the Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition
Nos.3801 and 3802 of 2008 on 18/6/2008 does not detain
us from proceeding to decide this petition on merits.
27. Two main issues arise for our considerations
in this petition, namely,
(a) whether the Council through its Committee,
while deciding the pending applications under
Sections 14 and 15 of the NCTE Act, is
required to consider the need to establish new
D.Ed. Colleges on the basis of the
requirements of primary school teachers in the
respective States in the near future? and,
(b) whether the impugned recognitions granted
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
22
to 291 new D.Ed. Colleges are in breach of
the directions issued by the Central
Government under Section 29 of the NCTE Act,
vide its order dated 23/11/2007.
28. The preamble of the NCTE Act states that it is
an Act to provide for the establishment of a National
Council for Teacher education with a view to achieving
planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher
education system throughout the country, the
regulation and proper maintenance of norms and
standards in the teacher education system and for
matters connected therewith. “Teacher education”
means programmes of education, research or training of
persons for equipping them to teach at pre-primary,
primary, secondary and higher secondary stages in
schools, and includes non-formal education, Part-time
education, adult education and correspondence
education. “Teacher education qualification” means a
degree, diploma or certificate in teacher education
awarded by a University or examining body in
accordance with the provisions of the NCTE Act.
“Examination body” means a University, agency or
authority to which an institution is affiliated for
conducting examinations in teacher education
qualifications, and “Institution” means an institution
which offers courses or training in teacher education.
Section 3 of the NCTE Act provides for establishment
of the National Council for Teacher Education and its
functions are laid down under Section 12 of the said
Act. It shall be 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 NCTE Act, the Council may
undertake surveys and studies relating to various
aspects of teacher education and publish the result
thereof; make recommendations to the Central and
State Governments, Universities, University Grants
Commission and recognised institutions in the matter
of preparation of suitable plans and programmes in the
field of teacher education; co-ordinate and monitor
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
23
teacher education and its development in the country;
formulate schemes for various leaves of teacher
education and identify recognised institutions and set
up new institutions for teacher development
programmes; and to take all necessary steps to
prevent commercialisation of teacher education.
Granting of recognition to institutions offering
courses or training in teacher education and
permission for a new course or training by recognised
institution are the functions which the NCTE Act has
vested with the Regional Committee established under
Section 20 of the said Act, but such Committee
discharges the said functions on behalf of the Council
and as a part of the Council. The examining body in
respect of the D.Ed. programmes in the State of
Maharashtra is the Maharashtra State Council for
Educational Research and Training and it is required
to grant affiliation where recognition has been
granted under Section 14 of the NCTE Act by the
Council through its Committee and as per Section 16 of
the said Act, the said examining body has no powers to
grant affiliation unless the institution concerned has
obtained recognition from the Committee concerned
under Section 14 or permission under Section 15 of the
NCTE Act.
29. Any institution proposing to open a new D.Ed.
college cannot be equated or compared with an
institution proposing to open a new college for higher
education i.e. graduate or post-graduate courses in
Arts, Commerce and Science etc. or on the lines of
the professional colleges like Health Sciences,
Engineering and Technology etc. Even for these
colleges of higher education to be established under
the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 or the
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998,
the All India Council for Technical Education Act 1987
or the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the concept
of need plays a prominent role. Under Section 82 of
the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, the University
is required to prepare a perspective plan and get the
same approved by the State Council for Higher
Education, for educational development for the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
24
location of colleges and institutions of higher
learning in a manner ensuring equitable distribution
of facilities for Higher Education having due regard,
in particular, to the needs of unserved and
under-developed areas within the jurisdiction of the
university and such a plan is required to be updated
every year. No application for opening a new college
or institution of higher learning, which is not in
conformity with such plan, shall be considered by the
university. Similarly, under Section 64 of the
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998,
the University shall prepare a perspective plan for
educational development for the location of
institutions of higher learning in a manner ensuring
equitable distribution of facilities of Health
Sciences Education having due regard, in particular,
to the needs of unserved and under developed areas
within the jurisdiction of the University. Such plan
shall be updated every five years. No application for
opening a new University or Institution of higher
learning which is not in conformity with such plan
shall be considered by the University. On the other
hand, the D.Ed. Colleges cannot be termed as
institutions of higher learning in the strict sense
and these colleges are meant only to prepare primary
school teachers and, therefore, they are called as
teacher education institutes. When we think of
teacher education programme, obviously, the
requirements of such teachers, who are normally called
as trained teacher, comes up for consideration at the
first instance. Requirement of teachers for the
future varies from State to State as the population
varies. A college exclusively catering to prepare
primary school teachers has to be founded on the
strength of teachers required in the primary schools
from time to time and more particularly keeping in
mind that the Constitution of India has guaranteed
education as a fundamental right to a child upto the
age of 14 years. It cannot be accepted that the
establishment of new D.Ed. colleges has nothing to do
with the requirements of trained primary teachers in
the concerned State. It may not be a sole criteria
but certainly it is a relevant requirement, though not
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
25
incorporated under Section 14 of the NCTE Act
specifically, that has to be taken into consideration
by the Council. The purpose for which the Council has
been established by the NCTE Act itself makes it clear
that the teacher education institutions are required
to be need based which implies that while granting
recognitions/permissions the requirement of teachers
either in the pre-primary schools, primary schools,
secondary schools or higher secondary schools are
required to be taken into consideration by the Council
while granting such applications.
30. In the instant petition we are not dealing
with a case of granting no objection or refusing to
grant affiliation by the University or the Examining
Body as was the issue in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar
Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (Supra). In the said
case recognitions to start new B.Ed. colleges were
granted and thereafter the respective Universities and
the Maharshtra State Government had refused to grant
affiliation to such B.Ed. colleges. It was in that
context the Supreme Court held that the State
Government could not have passed the order refusing
permission on the ground of the so called “policy” for
not allowing new B.Ed. Colleges to be opened. The
issues in this petition and as framed by us in para 25
for considerations are different as compared to the
issues that fell for consideration in the case of Sant
Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya. When the
Council established under the NCTE Act had granted
recognitions under the said Act, it was not
permissible for the State Government to invoke its
power under Sections 82 and 83 of the Maharashtra
Universities Act and refuse affiliation on the ground
that no new B.Ed. Colleges were required to be
opened. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the
provisions of Sections 82 and 83 would not apply to an
institution covered by the NCTE Act. The Supreme
Court further stated that as per the scheme of the
NCTE Act, once recognition has been granted by the
Council under Section 14 of the NCTE Act, every
University/Examining Body is obliged to grant
affiliation to such institutions and Sections 82 and
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
26
83 of the Universities Act do not apply to such cases.
In the case of Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak
Mahasangh Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. [AIR
1987 SC 135], the Supreme Court upheld the policy
decision of the State Government not to allow new
D.Ed. colleges to be opened considering the fact that
if permission would be granted, there would be large
scale unemployment and such a policy decision could
not be said to be arbitrary or otherwise unreasonable.
Of course, at the relevant time the power to grant or
refuse permission to open new D.Ed. colleges was with
the State Government.
31. Clause 7(3) of the National Council for
Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2005 reads as under:-
“(3) On receipt of the communication, the
State Government/UT Administration concerned
shall furnish its recommendations on the
applications to the office of the Regional
Committee concerned of the National Council
for Teacher Education within 60 days from
receipt. If the recommendation is negative,
the State Government/UT Administration shall
provide detailed reasons/grounds thereof,
which could be taken into consideration by the
Regional Committee concerned while deciding
the application. If no communication is
received from the State Government/UT
Administration within the stipulated 60 days,
it shall be presumed that the State
Government/UT Administration concerned has no
recommendation to make.”
. The same Regulations came to be amended /
revised in the form of National Council for Teacher
Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2007. Clause 7(3) of the 2007
Regulations reads as under:-
“(3) On receipt of the communication, the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
27
State Government/UT Administration concerned
shall furnish its recommendations on the
applications to the office of the Regional
Committee concerned of the National Council
for Teacher Education within 60 days from
receipt. If the recommendation is negative,
the State Government/UT Administration shall
provide detailed reasons/grounds thereof with
necessary statistics, which shall be taken
into consideration by the Regional Committee
concerned while deciding the application. If
no communication is received from the State
Government/UT Administration within the
stipulated 60 days, it shall be presumed that
the State Government/UT Administration
concerned has no recommendation to make.”
(Emphasis supplied)
. The change brought in while revising Clause
7(3) of the Regulations of 2005, the word “with
necessary statistics” has been added in Clause 7(3) of
the Regulations of 2007. These Regulations have been
framed under Section 32 of the NCTE Act by the Council
and it is, therefore, clear that the Council deems it
necessary to invite recommendations of the State
Government in respect of the applications submitted
under Section 14 or 15 of the NCTE Act by the
educational institutions and if the recommendation is
negative, the State Government is required to provide
detailed reasons/grounds thereof and with necessary
statistics, which shall be taken into consideration by
the WRC while deciding such applications. Thus, the
opinion of the State Government on the basis of
requirements of primary school teachers is sought by
the Council and it does take into consideration such
opinion while deciding the applications filed under
Section 14 or 15 of the NCTE Act. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the opinion of the State
Government on the need based requirement of new D.Ed.
Colleges is totally irrelevant. On the contrary, as
per the Regulations themselves, such
opinion/recommendation is one of the relevant
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
28
considerations while deciding the applications for
recognition/permission.
32. The Council claims that in its meeting held on
1/7/200 Clause 5(5) of the Regulations 2007 came to be
modified as under only for grant of recognition /
permission for starting various teacher training
courses for the current academic session i.e.
2008-2009:
“All complete applications pending with the
Regional Committees shall be processed for the
current academic session i.e. 200-2009 in
accordance with the provisions of relevant
Regulations and maintaining the chronological
sequence and final decision, either
recognition granted or refused, shall be
communicated by 31st August, 2008.”
. Based on the above amendment it was admitted
on behalf of the respondents that the Regulations of
2007 have not been applied to the impugned
recognitions and as per them, Regulations of 2005 were
made applicable in that regard. If that be so, it is
evident that the State Government was not required to
provide the necessary statistics while furnishing its
recommendations in the negative as is required under
Clause 7(3) of the Regulations of 2007, though we
will, in the later part of this judgment, refer to the
statistics furnished by the State Government in its
various letters as well as affidavits filed in this
petition which, in our opinion, is very relevant for
deciding the applications for recommendation /
permission by the Statement Government.
33. In support of our opinion that the
recommendation of the State Government while
processing an application either under Section 14 or
Section 15 of the NCTE Act, the opinion of the State
Government is relevant and it requires due
consideration by the Council through its Committee, we
rely upon the following observations made in the
report submitted by the Kaul Committee on 1/10/2007 to
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
29
the Government of India:
“1.7. Several representations have been
received from States expressing concern and
dissatisfaction about the functioning of the
Western Regional Committee (WRC), Bhopal.
Representations have also been received that
institutions do not meet the prescribed
standards and norms, but have nonetheless been
granted recognition. Complaints have also
been received on the mushrooming growth of
institutions in relation to the requirement of
teachers due to waiver of the condition of
obtaining “No Objection Certificate” from the
State Governments.
1.8
The Chairman, WRC, Bhopal, vide letter
dated 18/7/2007, expressed concern about the
superfluity of B.Ed./D.Ed. institutions in
the States falling under the jurisdiction of
WRC, Bhopal. In cognizance of the concern
expressed by Chairman, WRC, the Department of
School Education and Literacy, Ministry of
Human Resource Development issued directions
under Section 29 of the NCTE Act for a
comprehensive review of the WRC, Bhopal,
further directing that till such time as the
review was completed, the WRC, Bhopal, should
not grant further recognitions of institutions
/ courses / additional intake
2.3 Details of the increase in respect of
D.Ed. Courses in the State of Maharashtra
from 31/3/2005 to 31/3/2007
—————————————-
Date Courses Approved
as on recognised intake
—————————————-
31/3/2005 234 15903 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:55 ::: 30 31/3/2006 546 26553 31/3/2007 794 38953
—————————————-
8.4 … It is important for WRC to
undertake a comprehensive state-wise location
mapping of Teacher Education institutions.
The mapping exercise should cover both private
and government institutions imparting
professional training to teachers at all
levels of school education through collection
of data relating to number of students,
schools (govt. as well as private)
district-wise and state-wise so as to assess
the demand and supply of teachers as also to
provide ample scope of practical training of
teachers in the vicinity of the institution
seeking recognition. This exercise should
result in the creating of a dynamic
information base on the teacher education
system, which should be available online in
the public domain. Based on this exercise,
WRC should maintain a permanent MIS on teacher
education in the country through regular
updating of information. This is critical for
regular assessment of the quality of teacher
education and rationalizing distribution of
institutions in a need based manner.”
(Emphasis supplied)
8.5 The NCTE should review its
Regulations, which have rendered
recommendations / comments of State
Governments / UTs on applications seeking
recognition virtually redundant. The present
regulations correctly stipulate that
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
31
recommendations / comments of the State
Government should be received within 60 days
failing which it will be presumed that the
State Government / UT has no recommendation to
make. However, the present regulation also
stipulates that `if the recommendation is
negative, the State Government / UT
administration shall provide detailed reasons
/ grounds thereof, which could be taken into
consideration by the Regional Committee
concerned while deciding the application’.
There is a problem with the use of the word
`could’ in the said regulation, especially in
the absence of any stipulation for the
Regional Committees to give `detailed reasons
/ grounds’ for overlooking / ignoring the
comments of the State Governments. For all
practical purposes, this regulation has
resulted in virtually dispensing with the
system of consultation with State Governments
/ UT Administrations in the matter of Teacher
Education, and has caused considerable
resentment against the functioning of
NCTE-Regional Committees. The approach,
clearly one-sided, does not take congnizance
of the overall State requirements for teacher
education. It is therefore recommended that
NCTE review this provision to ensure that the
recommendations of the State Governments / UT
administrations concerned are given full and
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
32
careful consideration. A system should be
developed so that State representatives can
meaningfully participate in the deliberations
of the WRC. On its part, NCTE should develop
comprehensive guidelines on issues, which the
State Governments should consider while
submitting their comments / recommendations.
Such guidelines should be stringent enough so
that it becomes difficult for the States to
make recommendations in defiance of norms and
standards. NCTE and its Regional Committees
should not undermine the role and importance
of the State Governments since planned and
coordinated development of teacher education
cannot be achieved without their active
participation.” (Emphasis supplied)
8.10 … Yet, there is the problem of
indiscriminate and out-of-turn consideration
of applications. Out of 4533 applications
stated to be pending in the WRC, 305 appear to
be under consideration. How and under what
circumstances these 305 were identified for
consideration is not clear. Table 5 clearly
indicates that the maximum pendency in respect
of the 305 cases relates to Maharashtra and
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
33
Madhya Pradesh. In the case of Maharashtra,
the State Government has categorically stated
that no further institutions / course / intake
need be sanctioned….” (Emphasis supplied)
34. The letter dated 18/7/2007 submitted by the
Chairman of WRC to the Minister for Human Resource
Development, Government of India appears to be the
prelude for the intervention of the Central
Government, expressing deep concern regarding the
mushrooming growth of B.Ed. and D.Ed. colleges under
the WRC, in the following words:
“In the last one year, about a dozen letters
were sent to N.C.T.E. (W.R.C.) by the
Government of Maharashtra and Gujrat.
Similarly before some months, the Hon’ble
Chief Minister of Maharashtra sent letters to
the Hon’ble Human Resource Development
Minister. Recently letters have been received
from the Government of Chattisgarh also. It
is being repeatedly asked through these
letters that now no recognition should be
given to new Colleges in the region. Madya
Pradesh is not too an exception to this. In
Bhopal wherein recognition was given to only 5
Colleges upto 1995, this number has crossed 60
after the formation of NCTE.
From about one year, the SCERT representatives
of Maharashtra and Gujrat are not
participating in the meetings of W.R.C.
I, while discharging my social, educational
and moral responsibilities and duties, find it
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
34
extremely necessary that now, without making
delay for a moment, there should be ban for
giving recognition to new institutions for a
period of minimum one year and the matters
should be kept pending till information is
gathered from all the State Governments and
SCERT Units that there are how many Primary,
Middle and Higher Secondary Schools and how
many colleges are being run regionwise. One
High Level MHRD Committee should decide on the
basis of these compiled figures that how many
institutions are required regionwise.”
(Emphasis supplied)
35. From the above extracted comments in the Kaul
committee Report as well as the letter of the Chairman
of WRC, we have no doubt in our mind that the
recommendations of the State Government cannot be
ignored or they are of no consequence and in fact they
are very much relevant to be taken into consideration,
while processing the applications for grant of
recognition / permission under Sections 14 and 15 of
the NCTE Act respectively and it is not for the WRC to
devise its own guidelines and ignore the
recommendations made by the State Government on the
pretext that the recommendations made in the negative
were not supported by any detailed reasons. The WRC
ought to have read these reasons in the letters
written on behalf of the Government of Maharashtra by
various authorities including the Hon’ble Chief
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
35
Minister right from the year 2005 onwards. It is not
permissible for the WRC to contend that the
recommendations made by the State Government do not
come in its way in granting recognitions / permissions
so long as such applications fulfil the requirements
laid down under Section 14 of the NCTE Act and
Regulations of 2006. These requirements cannot be
considered in isolation and by ignoring the negative
recommendations of the State Government. In fact, it
would be highly relevant to refer at this stage to the
letter dated 21/8/2007 addressed to the Chairperson of
the Council by the Government of India through the
Ministry of Human Resource Development and admittedly
this letter states about the directions under Section
29 of the NCTE Act to withhold the grant of
recognition to Institutions Courses / additional
intake, falling under the jurisdiction of the Western
Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher
Education and the same reads as under:
“It has come to the notice of the Department
of School Education & 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.
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
undertaken or till further orders, whichever
is earlier.”
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
36
. Admittedly, these orders resulted in the
formation of Review Committee for WRC and hereinabove
referred to as the Kaul Committee.
36. The Director of the Maharashtra State Council
of Educational Research and Training vide his letter
dated 21/12/2005 addressed to the Regional Director,
WRC states thus:
“It is painful to note that the WRC – NCTE is
recognising elementary Teacher Education
Institutes (D.Ed. colleges) in Maharashtra,
though there is no additional requirement of
intake, even in the context of Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan. It was requested by this Council not
to recognise any more D.Ed. colleges in the
State after 31st August for the year 2005-06
vide letter dated 30/8/2005. However, it is
seen that after 31st August 2005, 20
Institutions have been recognised to run the
D.Ed. course from the year 2005-06. It is
stated here that there is no additional
requirement of new D.Ed. colleges or
additional divisions in the existing D.Ed.
colleges. This Council has requested WRC –
NCTE Bhopal vide its letter dated 7/12/2005
not to consider proposals of the Institutions
from the State of Maharashtra seeking
recognition to D.Ed. (either new or
additional units) for the year 2006-07. It
is, therefore, requested that WRC should not
consider any proposal of the institution
seeking recognition to run teacher education
courses in Maharashtra henceforth till further
instructions either from this Council or from
the State.”
. The Chief Minister of Maharashtra addressed a
letter dated 27/4/2007 to the Minister of Human
Resource Development, Government of India which reads
as under:
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
37
“Kindly refer to correspondence resting with
your demi-official letter
No.P-27-68/2006/EE-10 dated September 14,
2006, regarding sanctioning of new D.Ed.
colleges in the State without obtaining No
Objection Certificate (NOC) from the State
Government, wherein you had pointed out the
provisions of new regulations dated January
13, 2006 framed by the National Council
Teacher’s Education (NCTE) and suggested that
the State Representatives taking part in the
deliberations of Regional Committee meetings
held for sanctioning new D.Ed. colleges may
put up the view of the State Government in
respect of new D.Ed. colleges in these
meetings.
I have been informed now that the State
Representatives have always emphasized that
presently, number of D.Ed. colleges in
Maharashtra is more than the requirements of
the State. This view of State Government has
also been communicated in writing to the NCTE
on number of occasions. But it has been
observed that the NCTE is ignoring views of
State Government and sanctioning new D.Ed.
colleges. The NCTE, Bhopal has sanctioned
more than 250 new D.Ed. colleges and
additional divisions in the State, during
2006-07. Various sections of the society are
raising the questions about this policy.
In the light of above, it is once again
requested that the powers vested under Section
29 of NCTE Act 1993 may be revoked and NCTE
may be directed not to sanction any new D.Ed.
colleges in the State henceforth without the
NOC from the State Government. I shall be
grateful for favourable consideration.”
. On 30/8/2007 the Under Secretary – Government
of Maharashtra in the Department of School Education
and Sports wrote to the Regional Director (WRC)
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
38
regarding the request to furnish recommendations under
Clause 7(3) of the NCTE (Recognition, Norms and
Procedure), Regulations, 2005. It is not in dispute
that the Regulations of 2005 have been brought into
effect from 131/2006 and, therefore, they are more
popularly referred to as Regulations of 2006. The
letter dated 30/8/2007 reads as under:
“Your attention is invited to your letter
written to the Director, State Council of
Educational Research and Training, on the
subject cited above. In the State of
Maharashtra the number of D.Ed. colleges is
more than sufficient. There is no need of new
D.Ed. college in the State.
Taking into consideration the above mentioned
fact, the Director, State Council for
Educational Research and Training, Pune has
not recommended a single proposal.
Resultantly, the lists of proposals are
returned herewith with negative
recommendations.”
37. We have noted from the record that in all the
meetings (101st to 109th) of the WRC this letter of
the Government of Maharashtra was before the said
Committee and despite this the Committee surprisingly
observed and has maintained before us that the
recommendation of the Government of Maharashtra in 132
cases was only “No” without any justification and in
other “159” cases there was no recommendation at all.
The WRC could not have ignored this letter dated
30/8/2007 submitted on behalf of the Government of
Maharashtra and this letter, in our opinion, furnished
adequate reasons by the Government of Maharashtra not
to grant recommendations / permissions for new D.Ed.
colleges / courses in the State of Maharashtra and it
could not have been permissible for the WRC to state
that the Government did not furnish any reasons beyond
merely saying “No” or in majority of the cases the
Government did not furnish its recommendations. This
letter dated 30/8/2007 ought to have been read in
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
39
reference to all the pending proposals from the State
of Maharashtra for recognition / permission of new
D.Ed. colleges / courses.
38. Now let us come to the statistics regarding
the D.Ed. colleges, intake and the number of
unemployed D.Ed. qualification holders in
Maharashtra. The affidavit filed by the Secretary in
the Department of School Education and Sports,
Government of Maharashtra on 12/9/2008 refers to the
letters dated 2/11/2005, 11/5/2006, 20/10/2006 and
5/9/2006 addressed by the Director of the State
Council for Educational Research and Training, Pune to
the WRC-NCTE and the letters dated 11/7/2006 and
30/8/2007 addressed by the Secretary in the Department
of School Education and Sports as well as the letters
dated 23/8/2006 and 27/4/2007 addressed by the Chief
Minister to the Minister for Human Resource
Development. About the intake capacity increase by
WRC, Bhopal in respect of D.Ed. colleges in the State
of Maharashtra the affidavit gives the following
figures:
—————————————————-
Year Number of D.Ed.Colleges Intake capacity
—————————————————-
2004-05 325 15527
2005-06 464 (325+139) 32210
2006-07 686 (464+222) 50602
2007-08 788 (686+102) 57452
2008-09 1089 (788+301) 72300
—————————————————-
Note:- As per the Government of Maharashtra for the
present academic year in all 301 new colleges have
been granted whereas the NCTE states that the said
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
40
figure is 291.
. The said affidavit provides further statistics
as under in respect of the primary schools and
teachers:
A) No. of primary schools - 40,069 (Std.I to IV)
B) No. of upper primary
schools - 26,514 (Std.I to VII)
C) Total number of primary
teachers in the State - 4,87,668
D) The Pupil teacher ratio of the State is 34:1
E)
i.e. 1 teacher for 34 students.
The requirement of D.Ed. teachers is
approximately 2% of all posts of teachers out
of 4,87,668 due to retirement, death and 1%
for expansion of the system. Thus the
requirement of primary teachers at the rate 3
% per annum in the State comes to 14,630 per
year.
F) The results of D.Ed. Examinations are around
90% and, therefore, a large number of trained
D.Ed. youths come out of the colleges every
year.
39. During the course of hearing we had called
upon the State Government to file an additional
affidavit regarding the primary / middle schools of
linguistic minorities and accordingly the Deputy
Director of Education, Nagpur Division has filed the
affidavit on 26/11/2008 on behalf of the Secretary in
the Department of Education, Government of
Maharashtra. As per the said affidavit there are five
linguistic minority primary schools in the State of
Maharashtra viz. Hindi, English, Urdu, Gujrathi and
Kannad. The statistics of the schools, teachers and
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
41
capacity of D.Ed. colleges of these minority
institutions are as under,
Sr. Medium Number of Number of As per Capacity
No. primary teachers 3% of D.Ed.
schools Retd/ colleges
Ext
number
of
teachers
————————————————————————
1. Hindi 382 3096 93 1270
2. English 1345
ig 14986 450 3831
3. Urdu 1284 6960 209 3495
4. Gujarathi 137 828 25 175
5. Kannad 116 197 6 230
—————————————————————————
. The affidavit further gives the figure of
mediumwise unemployed D.Ed. holders from the State of
Maharashtra as of now as under:
—————————————-
Sr.No. Medium Number of unemployed
D.Ed. holders
—————————————-
1. Hindi 1110
2. English 1232
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
42
3. Urdu 4636
4. Gujrathi 55
5. Kannad 160
6. Marathi 41763
—————————————–
Note:- These figures of unemployed D.Ed. holders are
from the Employment Exchanges in the State of
Maharashtra as has been clarified by the learned
Additional government Pleader and they may not reflect
the actual number of unemployed D.Ed. holders, which
could be more.
40. Though the NCTE – WRC claims that the D.Ed.
qualifications granted in the State of Maharashtra are
also recognised in other States under its
jurisdiction, we do not find much force in these
submissions. The examining authority for the D.Ed.
examination in the State of Maharashtra within the
meaning of Section 2(d) of the NCTE Act is the
Maharashtra State Council for Educational Research and
Training and it is not necessary that the syllabus
framed by the State Council is akin to the syllabus in
other States. At the same time a vast majority of the
primary schools all over the country are in the local
languages. For example in Maharashtra a vast majority
of trained school teachers can teach only in Marathi
though for other languages like Urdu, Kannada,
Gujarathi, Hindi and English, there may be a
possibility of the D.Ed. qualification being
recognised in the neighbouring States under the WRC
but that by itself does not mean that all the D.Ed.
holders in the State of Maharashtra are recognised in
such States and they would be eligible for seeking
employment as primary teachers. Marathi is the medium
of instruction only in Maharashtra and may be in few
schools in the neighbouring States of Karnataka,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
43
Gujarath and Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, over all
scenario in Maharashtra on the employment particulars
is required to be considered and the stand taken by
the NCTE – WRC is only hypothetical and de hors of the
prevailing situation viz. different linguistic States
basis under its jurisdiction.
41. The issue of unemployment amongst the D.Ed. /
B.Ed. holders in the State of Maharashtra is not of
recent origin and it has been hunting the State
Government for the last more than eight years. The
service conditions of teachers in private schools
including the pay scales are governed by the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions
of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the MEPS Rules
1981 framed thereunder. The pay scales of the school
teachers are prescribed under the Rules of 1981 and
they are subject to revision from time to time as per
the orders issued by the State Government. In the
year 1999 the Government of Maharashtra made
applicable the Fifth Pay Commission pay scales to the
school teachers as well. It resulted in a heavy
financial burden on the exchequers as by that time a
vast majority of private schools were fully aided by
the State Government. Faced with the precarious
financial conditions, vast number of vacancies of
trained teachers to be filled in in the schools and
massive unemployment amongst the D.Ed. / B.Ed.
holders, the State Government came out with a
compromise formula for appointment of Shikshan Sevaks,
rather than appointing assistant teachers on
probation. The State Government issued the Government
Resolution dated 13th October 2000 for appointment of
Shikshan Sevaks on a consolidated monthly honorarium
of Rs.3000/- in respect of D.Ed. teachers and it
provided for appointment of Shikshan Sevaks for a
period of three years. If a trained teacher were to
be appointed on regular basis, the monthly salary
would exceed Rs.10,000/- whereas by appointment of
Shikshan Sevak the monthly honorarium / remuneration
would be Rs.3000/-. Under Section 5 of the MEPS Act,
1977 every Assistant Teacher appointed in a private
school is required to be on probation for a period of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
44
two years whereas the appointment of Shikshan Sevak is
for three years. However, the scheme of Shikshan
Sevaks appointment provided for absorption as
confirmed teacher on completion of tenure of three
years as Shikshan Sevak and Section 5 of the MEPS Act,
1977 came to be suitably amended as per the
Maharashtra Amendment of 2005. A number of writ
petitions were filed before this Court challenging the
scheme of Shikshan Sevaks and this Court allowed the
State Government to implement the scheme, impliedly on
the “doctrine of necessity”. There were vacancies of
trained teachers in the primary, secondary as well as
higher secondary schools and at the same time it was
not possible for the State Government to bear the
additional financial burden of making such
appointments on regular basis as the salaries required
to be paid were as per the Fifth Pay Commission
recommendations. On the other hand, a large number of
D.Ed. / B.Ed. holders were unemployed and therefore,
the State Government devised the Shikshan Sevak scheme
which has worked satisfactorily during the last about
eight years and the implementation of the scheme
itself is based on three factors and one of them being
the unemployment of D.Ed. / B.Ed. holders as noted
earlier and despite the said scheme having been
implemented for the last eight years, the unemployment
of B.Ed. / D.Ed. holders has been on the rise
steadily, mainly because the massive number of D.Ed.
/ B.Ed. holders coming out of the new colleges
started by the private institutions and the
limitations on the number of new schools either aided
or unaided. In fact in the State of Maharashtra
almost every village panchayat or group panchayat has
primary schools and the State Government has gone
further by opening such schools in even tiny hamlets
in the hilly / tribal tracks of various regions of the
State. Despite new schools being allowed to be opened
every year, it is evident and as has been brought out
in the affidavit of the State Government that the
requirement of additional teachers every year in the
future is not likely to increase beyond five per cent,
in pre-primary , primary and middle school sections.
It is also well known that in the middle school
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
45
section attached to the high schools, 25 per cent of
the teachers are required to be trained graduates i.e.
B.Ed. degree holders, in the State of Maharashtra.
In short the issue of unemployment of D.Ed. / B.Ed.
holders has not been daunting the State of Maharashtra
only from the year 2005 onwards and the State
Government has been facing the said problem right from
the year 2000. Even if the requirement of primary and
middle school teachers is expected to increse between
ten to twenty per cent every year, in our opinion, the
existing D.Ed. colleges are adequate to cater to
these numbers.
42. Now coming to the second issue of the binding
nature of the directions issued by the Union of India
to the Council under Section 29 of the NCTE Act, we
have already reproduced the said provisions in the
earlier part of this judgment (paragraph no.15). As
per the petitioners, the Council and the WRC have not
complied with these directions and more particularly
the directions issued vide communication dated
23/11/2007. Mr.Mishra, the learned Assistant
Solicitor General appearing for the Central Government
submitted that the directions in the order dated
23/11/2007 are by way of policy decision by the
Central Government to the Council.
. These directions are in multifolds and could
be summarised as under:
(a) The WRC, Bhopal will process all
pending applications ensuring, however, that
it scrupulously takes into account the view of
the State Government on the issue of sanction
or rejection of applications for recognition.
(b) In case WRC, Bhopal differs with the
view of the State Government, it shall record
specific reasons in writing in such case and
submit a special report to NCTE headquarters.
(c) NCTE shall expedite the study on the
demand and supply of teachers / teaching
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
46
capacity specially for the States of
Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and
Chattisgarh; and
(d) The recommendations in respect of
amendments to NCTE Act and its Regulations
shall be carefully examined in consultation
with the Ministry of Law.
43. As per the additional affidavit filed by the
Respondent nos.3 and 4 pursuant to the orders passed
by this Court on 18/10/2008, the WRC, Bhopal
considered the directions of the Government of India
as reproduced hereinabove on the backdrop of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sant
Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Sanstha (Supra) in its 100th
meeting held from 17th to 19th December 2007 and took
decisions as under so as to process the pending
applications as per the directions of the Union of
India:
(1) If there is any positive recommendation
from the State Government, recognition /
permission will be granted as per NCTE
Regulations.
(2) If the State Government has not
communicated any positive or negative remark
within 60 days from the issue of the letter
from WRC to the concerned State Government,
cases will be considered on merit basis.
(3) In case of negative recommendations,
without any justification, cases will be
considered on merit basis.
(4) If the State Government gives negative
recommendations in respect of a particular
institution with justification and in the
opinion of the committee justification is
genuine, the case will be rejected.
Intimation of such cases will be sent to NCTE
Headquarters.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
47
(5) In case WRC defers with the negative and
reasoned recommendations of the State
Government, cases will be forwarded to the
NCTE Headquarters.
44. We do not find any fault with decision nos.1
and 2 above taken by the WRC. However, we find faults
with decision nos.3 to 5, on the backdrop of the
directions issued by the Union of India to the Council
vide its letter dated 23/11/2007. The Union of India
directed WRC, Bhopal to scrupulously take into account
the view of the State Government on the issue of
sanction or rejection of application for recognition
while processing of pending application and in case
the committee differed with the view of the State
Government, it was required to record specific reasons
in writing in such cases and submit a special report
to the NCTE Headquarters. It was not permissible for
the WRC, Bhopal to consider and allow the applications
for recognition where the State Government had not
recommended the applications. In such cases the WRC,
Bhopal, if it differed with the view of the State
Government, was required to record specific reasons in
writing and submit a special report to the Council.
However, the WRC, Bhopal in its wisdom took a decision
that if the negative recommendations were found to be
without justification, the applications will be
considered on merit basis and further if the negative
recommendations of the State Government were without
any justification and in the opinion of the committee,
the justification was genuine, the case will be
rejected. We have no doubt that such a power was not
vested with the WRC as per the directions of the Union
of India vide its letter dated 23/11/2007. Admittedly
these directions were on the backdrop of the Kaul
Committee recommendations which came down heavily on
the working of the WRC, Bhopal. A number of serious
infirmities in the working of the said committee were
found and one of the serious observations made was the
decision of the WRC to consider only 300 and odd
applications as against the pendency of 2045
applications from the State of Maharashtra as on
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
48
1/10/2007. Even before us no satisfactory
justification has been provided as to why the WRC
considered only this limited number of applications.
45. Section 29 of the NCTE Act is in two parts.
Sub-section (1) states that the Council shall in the
discharge of its functions and duties under the Act be
bound by such directions on the questions of policy as
the Central Government may give in writing to it from
time to time and as per Sub-section (2) the decision
of the Central Government as to whether a question is
one of policy or not shall be final. It was rightly
submitted by Mr.Mishra, the learned Assistant
Solicitor General that the Government of India was
concerned with the representations made by some States
under the WRC and more particularly the State of
Maharashtra on the mushrooming growth of D.Ed.
colleges and also unwittingly on the commercialisation
of the teacher education. As a matter of policy
decision the Central Government directed vide its
order dated 23/11/2007 that the objections raised by
the Government of Maharashtra on recognitions to be
granted to new D.Ed. colleges were required to be
scrupulously considered and that too on the basis of
the demand and supply for primary teachers in the
academic years to come. It is not the case of the
Council that the directions vide the order dated
23/11/2007 were not the directions on the questions of
policy by the Central Government. It is not
permissible for the private respondents to contend
that the order dated 23/11/2007 cannot be termed as
directions on questions of policy by the Central
Government. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 clearly
states that the decision of the Central Government as
to whether a question is one of policy or not shall be
final. The provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the
NCTE Act cannot be considered in isolation from other
provisions contained therein and though the WRC was
required to consider the pending applications on the
basis of the provisions of Section 14 of the NCTE Act
as well as the Regulations of 2006, the Council shall
in discharge of its functions and duties under the
said Act be bound by directions issued by the Central
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
49
Government in writing to it from time to time on the
questions of policy. If the Central Government by way
of policy decides that in view of the saturation of
D.Ed. qualification holders, no applications for
recognition be considered / processed under Section 14
of the said Act, such directions are binding under
Section 29 therein on the Council and the Council or
its subordinate Regional Committee shall not be
entitled to proceed with the applications. In the
instant case by way of a policy decision the Central
Government directed the Council that in case the WRC
differed with the negative recommendations of the
State Government, a special report was required to be
submitted by the WRC to the Council and the Council
was required to undertake study of demand and supply
of primary teachers and take further appropriate steps
on such applications. Any decision taken by the WRC
as a subordinate body of the Council and contrary to
the directions issued under Section 29 by the Central
Government is unsustainable and it cannot claim that
the applications have been considered under Section 14
of the NCTE Act and support its decision to grant
recognitions.
. On completion of the study for demand and
supply of trained teachers by the Council, and such a
report being placed before the Central Government
through the Ministry of Human Resource Development,
the Central Government is empowered to issue
directions under Section 29 of the NCTE Act by way of
policy decisions that,
(a) keep the applications for recognition
pending and not to invoke the powers under
Section 14 of NCTE Act;
(b) not to grant any further recognitions for
a specific period; or
(c) not to sanction any further new D.Ed.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
50
colleges;
(d) limit the number of recognitions along
with the intake capacity for a particular
academic year or years.
. On the face of such directions the Council or
any of its Committees cannot claim that the powers
under Sections 14 or 15 of the NCTE Act will be
invoked and applications will be processed so as to
start new D.Ed. colleges / courses in any State or in
the State where such directions have been issued by
the Central Government. On the basis of the demand
and supply of trained teachers in the schools in a
particular State, the Central Government, by way of
its policy decision, cannot be denied to have the
powers under Section 29 of the NCTE Act to direct the
Council and its Committees not to process the
applications for such recognition / permission for the
period as it may deem fit. The scheme of the NCTE Act
must be read so as to vest such powers of policy
decision with the Central Government to issue
directions to the Council under Section 29 of the said
Act, lest invoking the provisions of Section 14
therein in isolation may lead to an absurdity and
defeat the whole purpose of the NCTE Act.
46. It was urged before us and as has been stated
in the replies filed by the Council and the WRC that
the State Government had given no recommendations in
159 cases and gave a recommendation of only “No” in
132 cases. This contention of the respondent nos.3
and 4 is in utter disregard to the letter dated
30/8/2007 submitted by the State Government to the
Regional Director, WRC, Bhopal and as has been
referred to para no.30. This letter ought to have
been read as a recommendation of the State Government
in all the applications for recognition / permission
and the recommendation of the State Government could
not have been read as only “No” without any further
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
51
justification. The stand taken by the respondent
nos.3 and 4 in this regard is totally frivolous and in
all the meetings commencing from 101st to 109th
meetings of the WRC the letter dated 30/8/2007 was
very much on record. The Kaul Committee very
specifically observed that the representative of the
State of Maharashtra had stopped attending the WRC
meetings for the last more than one year as the State
Government was not in favour of granting any new
recognitions / permissions in view of the fact that a
number of D.Ed. colleges in the State of Maharashtra
were more than sufficient and a large number of D.Ed.
holders remained unemployed. The decisions taken by
the WRC, Bhopal and on the basis of the guidelines
framed by it in its 100th meeting so as to process the
pending applications are in breach of the directions
issued by the Union of India vide its order dated
23/11/2007 and so far as the State of Maharashtra is
concerned the only course available to WRC, Bhopal was
to make a special report on all these applications and
submit it to the Council. On receipt of such report,
the Council in turn was required to expedite the study
on the demand supply of teachers / teaching capacity
for the State of Maharashtra and the consider such
applications for recognition / permissions for new
D.Ed. colleges / courses on the basis of such a data.
The directions of the Union of India in its order
dated 23/11/2007 are unambiguous and the reliance of
the WRC on the judgment in the case of Sant
Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Sanstha (Supra) does not support
it to deviate from the directions of the Union of
India. We have already noted in the earlier part of
this judgment that the law laid down by the Apex Court
in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Sanstha is
not applicable in the instant case as the petition
involves a limited issue of following the directions
issued under Section 29 by the Union of India. The
decisions taken by the WRC, Bhopal in its 101st to
109th meetings for granting the impugned recognitions
are, therefore, unsustainable as they are in breach of
the directions issued by the Union of India under
Section 29 of the NCTE Act and as set out in its order
dated 23/11/2007. The learned counsel for the private
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
52
respondents, as noted earlier, contended that the said
order dated 23/11/2007 should not be termed as valid
directions by the Union of India as the order was not
authenticated in the name of the President of India.
These contentions are far-fetched and are, therefore,
required to be rejected. It is important to note that
the respondent nos.3 and 4 i.e. the Council and the
Committee fairly conceded that the order dated
23/11/2007 sets out the directions by the Government
of India to the Council under Section 29 of the NCTE
Act and the directions are binding on the Council.
The WRC, Bhopal is part of the Council and the
decisions taken by the WRC, Bhopal for granting
recognitions / permissions are on behalf of the
Council, though the Council still retains the power of
appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act. We are of
the considered opinion that all the pending
applications as of 1/10/2007 were required to be
considered after the Council had completed the study
on the demand and supply of teachers / teaching
capacity in the State of Maharashtra and with the
assistance of the Examining Body viz. the Maharashtra
State Council for Educational Research and Training at
Pune. On the face of the letter dated 30/8/2007 and
the earlier correspondence right from the letter dated
21/12/2005 by the Director of the Maharashtra State
Council for Educational Research and Training upto the
letter written by the Chief Minister of Maharashtra to
the Minister for Human Resource Development,
Government of India, on 27/4/2007, the WRC ought to
have accepted the opposition of the State Government
with specific reasons / justification. It was not
empowered to adjudicate or sit in appeal over the
reasons furnished by the State of Maharashtra. WRC,
Bhopal was duty bound to make a special report of all
the pending applications coming from the State of
Maharashtra for recognition / permission as on
1/10/2007 and submit to the Council. It was
thereafter left to the Council to consider these
applications on the basis of the study on the demand
and supply of teachers in the pre primary, primary and
middle schools (higher primary schools). Hence the
recognitions / permissions granted by the WRC, Bhopal
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::
53
on behalf of the Council in its 100st to 109th
meetings are unsustainable and in any case as per the
order passed by this Court on 29/8/2008 all these
permissions were subject to the result of the present
writ petition.
47. In the premises this petition succeeds partly.
The recognitions / permissions granted by the Council
– WRC, Bhopal in its 104th to 109th meetings and
pertaining to the State of Maharashtra for
establishment of 291 new D.Ed. colleges / courses (as
the case may be) are hereby quashed and set aside.
The WRC, Bhopal shall submit a special report in
respect of the pending applications as on 1/10/2007
from the State of Maharashtra (2045 applications as
per the Kaul Committee Report) to the Council by
taking into consideration the recommendations of the
State Government as reflected vide its letter dated
30/8/2007. The Council, in turn, will complete the
study on the demand and supply of teachers in the
primary / higher primary schools in the State of
Maharashtra with the assistance of / in collaboration
with the Maharashtra State Council for Educational
Research and Training at Pune before 30th April 2009
and place the said study report before the Central
Government through the Ministry of Human Resource
Development at the earliest possible and seek further
directions. Based on such directions under Section 29
of the NCTE Act to be issued by the Central Government
the Council shall take further appropriate steps to
deal with such applications as pending on the day the
directions are issued by the Central Government, for
the recognitions / permissions for D.Ed. course in
the State of Maharashtra for the academic years
2009-10 onwards.
48. Rule is made absolute in terms of the above
directions but without any order as to costs.
(A.H.JOSHI,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:12:55 :::