{"id":129157,"date":"2005-02-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-02-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005"},"modified":"2016-02-10T20:27:50","modified_gmt":"2016-02-10T14:57:50","slug":"bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005","title":{"rendered":"Bharathidasan University vs Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan on 23 February, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Bharathidasan University vs Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan on 23 February, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 23\/02\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM   \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. KRISHNAN  \n\nWrit Appeal No. 4204 of 2004\nand Writ Appeal Nos., 4205, 4237, 4240, 4241 of 2004,\nand \n104, 150, 180, 305, 306 and 307 of 2005\nand \nW.A.M.P.Nos. 7969, 7970, 8026, 8029 to 8031\/2004, 150\/2005,   \n235\/2005,299\/2005,and 553 to 557\/2005  \n\n\nW.A.No.4204\/2004  \n\nBharathidasan University,\nrepresente\nPalkalaiperur, Tiruchirapalli-620 024. ..Appellant\/Respondent.<\/pre>\n
-Vs-\n<\/p>\n
Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan,
\nEducational and Charitable Trust,
\nrepresented by its Chairman,
\nPerambalur-621 212. .. Respondent\/Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
W.A.No. 4205\/2004  <\/p>\n
Bharathidasan University,
\nrepresented by its Registrar-in-charge,
\nPalkalaiperur, Tiruchirapalli-620 024.\n<\/p>\n
                                ..Appellant\/4th Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
                          Vs.\n<\/p>\n
1. M.A.S. Subbiah Chettiar
\n   Educational and Charitable Trust,
\n   represented by its Managing Trustee,
\n   West CIT Nagar, Chennai-600 035.  ..Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
\n   represented by Secretary to
\n   Government, Higher Education Department,
\n   Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. ..1st Respondent.<\/p>\n
\n\n3. The Regional Director,\n   National Council for Teacher\n   Education, C.S.D. Building,\n   HMT Post, Bangalore-560 031       ..2nd Respondent.\n\n4. The Director of College\n<\/pre>\n
   Education, Chennai-600 006.       .. 3rd Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
                                            .. Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
W.A.No. 4237\/2004
\n1  State of Tamil Nadu,
\n   represented by its Secretary,
\n   Higher Education Department,
\n   Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2. Director of Collegiate Education,
\n   Chennai-600 006.\n<\/p>\n
                          .. Appellants\/Respondents 1 and 3.\n<\/p>\n
                           Vs.\n<\/p>\n
1. M.A.S. Subbiah Chettiar
\n   Educational and Charitable Trust,
\n   represented by its Managing Trustee,
\n   Chennai-600 035.        ..Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Regional Director,
\n   National Council for Teacher
\n   Education, C.S.D. Building,
\n   HMT Post, Bangalore-560 031 ..2nd Respondent. <\/p>\n
\n\n3. The Registrar,\n   Bharathidasan University,\n   Palkalaiperur, Trichy.      ..4th Respondent.\n\n                                          ..Respondents.\n\n\nW.A.No. 4240\/2004  \nState of Tamil Nadu,\nrepresented by its Secretary,\nHigher Education Department, \nFort St. George, Chennai-600 009.\n                                ..Appellant\/1st Respondent.\n\n                           Vs.\n\n1. Kasthuriba Gandhi College of\n   Education, run by Freedom Fighter\n   N. Kandasamy Educational Trust, \n   Athanur village, Rasipuram Taluk,\n   Namakkal District,\n   represented by its President\n   K. Chidambaram.              .. Petitioner.\n\n2. The Regional Director,\n   National Council for Teacher\n   Education, C.S.D. Road,\n   HMT Post, Jalahalli,\n   Bangalore-32                ..2nd Respondent.\n\n3. The Registrar,\n   Periyar University, Salem.  ..3rd Respondent.\n\n                                            .. Respondents.\n\n\n\nW.A.No. 4241\/2004  \nState of Tamil Nadu,\nrepresented by its Secretary,\n\n\nHigher Education Department, \nFort St. George, Chennai-600 009.\n                               ..Appellant\/1st Repspondent.\n\n                            Vs.\n\n1. Parasakthi College of Education\n   Run by Muthuramaswamy Andal   \n   Educational and Social Trust,\n   S. Kottaipatti, Peraiyur Taluk,\n   Madurai District-625 527,\n   represented by its Secretary,\n   M. Jagadeesan.          ..Petitioner.\n\n2. The Regional Director,\n   National Council for Teacher\n   Education, C.S.D. Road,\n   HMT Post, Jalahalli,\n   Bangalore-32             ..2nd Respondent.\n\n3. The Registrar,\n   Madurai Kamaraj University,\n   Madurai.                 ..3rd Respondent.\n\n                                          .. Respondents.\n\nW.A.No. 104\/2005  \nThe University of Madras,\nrepresented by its\nRegistrar, Chepauk, Chennai-5.\n                                   ..Appellant\/Respondent.\n\n                          Vs.\n\nChrist Educational Trust,\nrepresented by its Chairman,\nNo.74, Nehru Street,\nKumaran Nagar, Padi, \nChenni-600 050. \n                                  ..Respondent\/Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\nW.A.No.150\/2005  \nThe University of Madras,\nrepresented by its\nRegistrar, Chepauk, Chennai-5.\n                                   ..Appellant\/Respondent.\n\n                            Vs.\n\n\nLoordhu Ammal Educational Trust, \nrepresented by its Secretary,\nNo.1A, Chari Street,\nNorth Usman Road,  \nT.Nagar, Chennai-17.\n                                  ..Respondent\/Petitioner.\n\n\nW.A.No.180\/2005  \nThe Registrar,\nMadurai Kamaraj University,\nMadurai.\n                             .. Appellant\/3rd Respondent.\n\n                          Vs.\n\n1. Parasakthi College of Education\n   Run by Muthuramaswamy Andal   \n   Educational and Social Trust,\n   S. Kottaipatti, Peraiyur Taluk,\n   Madurai District,\n   represented by its Secretary,\n   M. Jagadeesan.          ..Petitioner.\n\n\n2. The State of Tamil Nadu,\n   represented by its Secretary,\n   Higher Educational Department,\n   Fort St. George, Chennai-9. .. 1st Respondent.\n\n3. The Regional Director,\n   National Council for Teacher\n   Education, C.S.D. Road,\n   HMT Post, Jalahalli,\n   Bangalore-32               ..2nd Respondent.\n\n                                          .. Respondents.\n\n\nW.A.No.305\/2005  \nThe Periyar University,\nrepresented by its Registrar,\nSalem-11. \n                              .. Appellant\/3rd Respondent.\n\n                             Vs.\n\n1. Kasthuriba Gandhi College of Education,\n   Run by Freedom fighter N. Kandasamy  \n   Educational Trust, Athanur village,\n   Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District,\n   represented by its President\n   K. Chidambaram.               ..Petitioner.\n\n2. The State of Tamil Nadu,\n   represented by its Secretary,\n   Higher Education Department,\n   Fort St. George, Chennai-9.  ..1st Respondent.\n\n3. The Regional Director,\n   National Council for Teacher Education,\n   CSD Road, HMT Post, Jalahalli,\n   Bangalore-32.                ..2nd Respondent.\n\n                                          .. Respondents.\n\n\nW.A.No. 306\/2005  \nThe Periyar University,\nrepresented by its Registrar,\nSalem-11. \n                                 .. Appellant\/Respondent.\n                             Vs.\n\nPavai Varam Educational Trust,\nrepresented by its Chairman\nV. Natarajan, Rasipuram, 637 408.\n                                 .. Respondent\/Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\nW.A.No. 307\/2005  \nThe Periyar University,\nrepresented by its Registrar,\nSalem-11. \n                                 .. Appellant\/Respondent.\n\n                            Vs.\n\nMadras Education and Research   \nIntegrated Trust (MERIT),\nrepresented by its Managing Trustee\nT. Padmavathi.\n                                 .. Respondent\/Petitioner.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
        Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against judgement
\nof  Single  Judge  of  this  Court dated 25-11-2004, made in Writ Petition No.
\n27757 of 2004;\n<\/p>\n
29-11-2004, made in Writ Petition No.  28709\/2004;\n<\/p>\n
25-11-2004, made in Writ Petition No.  28009\/2004;\n<\/p>\n
25-11-2004, made in Writ Petition No.  28335\/2004;\n<\/p>\n
06-12-2004, made in Writ Petition No.  35283\/2004;\n<\/p>\n
06-12-2004, made in Writ Petition No.  34823\/2004;\n<\/p>\n
25-11-2004, made in Writ Petition No.  28009\/2004;\n<\/p>\n
25-11-2004, made in Writ Petition No.  28356\/2004; and
\n25-11-2004, made in Writ Petition No.  27030\/2004.\n<\/p>\n
!Mr.  P.  Subbaya assisted by Mr.  C.K.  Chandrasekaran:-
\nAppellant in W.A.Nos.  4202, 4205\/2004 and
\n3rd respondent in W.A.No.  4237\/2004.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  R.  Muthukumarasamy, Addl.  Advocate General,
\nassisted by Mr.V.Karthikeyan, Addl.Govt.,Pleader ( Edn.):-  For  Appellant  in
\nW.A.Nos.4237,4240,   4241   and   305  to  307\/2005  and  respondents  2,4  in
\nW.A.No.4205\/2004,for R-3 in W.A.No.4240\/2004
\nand for 2nd respondent in W.A.No.180\/2005.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  R.  Muthukumarasamy, Addl.  Advocate General,
\nassisted by Mr.  N.  Rajan:- Appellant in W.A.Nos.\n<\/p>\n
104 and 150\/2005.\n<\/p>\n
^Mr.  P.  Jyothimani:-For appellant in W.A.No.180\/2005
\nand for 3rd respondent in W.A.No.4241\/2004.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  R.  Krishnamoorthy, Senior counsel for Mr.
\nA.  Jenasenan:- For Respondent in W.A.No.4204\/2005.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  N.  Paul Vasanthakumar:- For 1st Respondent in
\nW.A.Nos.  4205, 4237\/2004 and 307\/2005.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  S.  Udayakumar, Senior Central Government
\nStanding counsel:- For R-3 in W.A.Nos.  4205\/2004,
\n180\/2005 and 305\/2005; and for R-2 in W.A.Nos.\n<\/p>\n
4237, 4240 and 4241\/2004.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  K.  Chandru, Senior counsel for Mr.  B.  Rabu
\nManohar:- For R-1 in W.A.Nos.  4240, 4241\/2004
\n180\/2005 and 305\/2005.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  E.  Sampathkumar, Govt., Advocate for R-2
\nin W.A.No.  305\/2005.\n<\/p>\n
No appearance for Respondent in W.A.Nos.  104 and
\n150\/2005.\n<\/p>\n
:COMMON ORDER      <\/p>\n
(Order of Court was made by P.  Sathasivam, J.,)<\/p>\n
Higher Education Department of State of Tamil Nadu, Bharathidasan  University,
\nTiruchirapalli,  aggrieved  by  the  common  order of the learned Single Judge
\ndated 25-11-2004, made in W.P.No.    27030\/2004  etc.,  batch,  directing  the
\nUniversities    to    consider    the    applications    submitted    by   the
\npetitioner-Institution  for  grant  of  affiliation  for  conducting   teacher
\ntraining  course  for  the  academic  year 2004-20 05 without insisting on the
\nproduction of the No Objection Certificate from  the  State  Government,  have
\nfiled the above Writ Appeals.  Since the issues raised in all the Writ Appeals
\nare one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following order.\n<\/p>\n
2.   For  convenience,  we shall refer the facts leading to the filing of Writ
\nAppeal No.  4204\/2004,  filed  by  Bharathidasan  University,  Tiruchirapalli.
\nDhanalakshmi   Srinivasan   Educational   and  Charitable  Trust,  Perambalur,
\naggrieved by the proceedings of the Bharathidasan  University,  Tiruchirapalli
\ndated  23-9-2004  declining to consider and grant affiliation to their college
\nto establish a B.Ed., training course,  has  filed  W.P.No.    27757\/2004  for
\nquashing  the  same  and  for  consequential  direction  to  the University to
\nconsider their application for affiliation for B.Ed., course for their college
\nin the name  and  style  of  Dhanalakshmi  Srinivasan  College  of  Education,
\nPerambalur for  the  academic  year 2004-2005.  According to them, their Trust
\ndesired to establish a Teacher Training College at Perambalur.  The course  in
\nTeacher Education falls within the purview of the National Council for Teacher
\nEducation  constituted  under  the National Council for Teacher Education Act,
\n1993 (Act 73\/1993) (“NCTE Act” in short).    As  per  the  NCTE  Act  and  the
\nNational  Council  for Teacher Education Regulations, 2002, if a Management or
\nInstitution desired to establish a  Teacher  Training  College  or  a  Teacher
\nTraining Institute, it has to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the
\nState  Government  and make an application to the National Council for Teacher
\nEducation ( NCTE) along with  the  said  NOC.    Accordingly,  the  petitioner
\nsubmitted an application to the State Government for grant of NOC to establish
\na Teacher  Training College.  The State Government passed orders on 01-01-2004
\nrejecting their claim.  Since the State Government rejected their application,
\nthe petitioner filed W.P.No.  19419\/2004 before this Court for issuance  of  a
\nMandamus,  directing  the  NCTE  to  consider  their  application for grant of
\nrecognition\/approval to start a Teacher Training College.  On consideration of
\nthat matter, this Court  on  12-7-2  004  directed  the  NCTE  to  follow  the
\njudgement  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  2003  3  SCC  321  and  consider their
\napplications for recognition.  Thereafter, the NCTE  conducted  an  inspection
\nand  after  verifying  the  infrastructural  facilities  of  the  petitioner’s
\ncollege, issued orders on 07-09-2004, granting recognition to their college of
\neducation known as Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan College of Education for  a  period
\nof  one  year  from  the  academic year 2004-2005 with an annual intake of 100
\nstudents.  They have got all  the  infrastructural  facilities  to  start  the
\nTeacher   Training   College   in   their   campus   and   had  also  obtained
\napproval\/recognition from the NCTE and what  remained  was  only  to  get  the
\nnecessary  affiliation;  accordingly,  they  submitted  an application for the
\ngrant of affiliation to the Bharathidasan University on 9-9-2004 along with  a
\ncovering  letter  stating that they had complied with 100 % of the requirement
\nincluding permanent building, library, laboratory facilities, staff  etc.,  as
\nper  the  NCTE  norms  and  requested  affiliation by enclosing a Demand Draft
\ntowards the application  fee.    However,  they  received  a  reply  from  the
\nUniversity  on  23-9-2004,  informing that the institution should approach the
\nUniversity for affiliation after obtaining orders from  the  State  Government
\npermitting  them  to  establish  a self-financing B.Ed., college in accordance
\nwith the provisions of the University Act and the Tamil Nadu Private  Colleges
\n( Regulation) Act.  The said order declining to consider and grant affiliation
\nto  their  college is illegal, contrary to law laid down by the Supreme Court.
\nIn these circumstances, having no other remedy, the petitioner filed the  said
\nwrit  petition  before this Court, and the same was taken up for hearing along
\nwith  other  writ  petitions  filed  by  other  similarly  placed  educational
\ninstitutions.   By a common order dated 2 5-11-2004, the learned Single Judge,
\nafter holding that the insistence of NOC from  the  State  Government  by  the
\nuniversities   for   establishing   teacher   training   college   is  totally
\nunsustainable, allowed  all  the  writ  petitions  filed  by  the  Educational
\nInstitutions   and   directed   the  Universities  to  consider  each  of  the
\napplications submitted by the Institutions for grant  of  affiliation  without
\nreference to  the prior permission from the State Government.  Questioning the
\nsame, the Universities and the State Government have preferred the above  Writ
\nAppeals.\n<\/p>\n
3.  Heard Mr.    R.  Muthukumarasamy, learned Additional Advocate General, for
\nthe State and for University of Madras and Periyar University, Salem; Mr.   P.
\nSubbaya, learned counsel  for  Bharathidasan  University;  Mr.  P.  Jothimani,
\nlearned counsel for Madurai University;  Mr.    R.    Krishnamoorthy,  learned
\nsenior  counsel  for Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Educational and Charitable Trust;
\nMr.  K.  Chandru, learned senior counsel  for  Kasthuriba  Gandhi  College  of
\nEducation and Parasakthi  College  of  Education; Mr.  N.  Paul Vasanthakumar,
\nfor M.A.S.  Subbiah Chettiar Educational and Charitable Trust and  for  Madras
\nEducation and Research  Integrated  Trust; Mr.  S.  Udayakumar, learned Senior
\nCentral Government standing counsel for NCTE.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The main  contentions  put-forward  by  the  learned  Additional  Advocate
\nGeneral  appearing  for the State and some of the Universities and the learned
\ncounsel for other Universities are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
i) Neither the NCTE  Act  nor  the  National  Council  for  Teacher  Education
\nRegulations,  2002  deal  with the approval to the establishment of a college.
\nSections 14 and 15 of the NCTE Act only deal with recognition of  the  Teacher
\nTraining  course in a new institution or in an existing institution; hence the
\nNCTE Act cannot be  said  to  cover  the  entire  field  relating  to  Teacher
\nEducation  in  colleges  and consequently the State Enactment dealing with the
\npermission to establish the College would continue to be valid.\n<\/p>\n
ii) The provisions contained in All India Council for Technical Education Act,
\n1987 (“AICTE Act” in short) and the  Indian  Medical  Council  Act,  1956  are
\ncomprehensive  and  cover  the  area  of  establishment  of  colleges as well.
\nSimilarly the Supreme Court, in Adhiyaman College of  Engineering  case  [1995
\n(4)  SCC  104]  relating to AICTE Act and Thirumuruga Kripananda Variar’s case
\n[1996 (3) SCC 15] relating to establishment of medical  colleges,  found  that
\nthose Acts  occupy  the  whole field.  However, Sections 14 and 15 of NCTE Act
\ndeals only with recognition of the course or the institution and does not deal
\nwith the establishment of a college.  In such a circumstance, the findings  of
\nthe  learned  Single  Judge that the provisions of the AICTE Act or the Indian
\nMedical Council Act are in pari materia with the NCTE Act and that  therefore,
\nthe directions of the Supreme Court in the above cases would apply to NCTE Act
\nalso, may not be correct and requires to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
iii)  The concept of establishment of a new college and permission or approval
\nthereof is not covered by the Central Act.  The  Central  Act  which  confines
\nitself  to  recognition of the course cannot be said to cover the entire field
\nand hence the State Enactments dealing with permission for  the  establishment
\nof a college or institution would still survive.\n<\/p>\n
iv)  The  provision dealing with permission and approval for establishment and
\nrecognition of colleges (higher education) would be matters referable to entry
\n25 of list III and, therefore, the  State  Government  is  well  within  their
\npowers.  The contrary conclusion arrived by the learned Single Judge is liable
\nto be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
5.   The  main submission of the various educational institutions made through
\ntheir counsel are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
(i) Since Sections 14 and 15 of NCTE Act are similar to the one  contained  in
\nSection  10  (k)  of  AICTE Act or 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, the
\njudgements  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  Jaya  Gokul’s  case  and  Thirumuruga
\nKirubananda  Variar’s  case  (cited supra) would clearly apply to the NCTE Act
\nand therefore, the findings of the learned Single Judge should be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) The intention of the Parliament in enacting the NCTE Act is clear to  the
\neffect  that  the entire field relating to teacher education is covered by the
\nCentral Act and,  therefore,  the  State  Enactments  would  become  void  and
\nredundant.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)  Notwithstanding different terminology that has been used, the substance
\nof the same is acceptance of the  institution  by  the  appropriate  authority
\nwhich  would  be  sufficient  to hold that Central Act covers the entire field
\nrelating to teacher education, thereby resulting in the said Act would  become
\nvoid.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)  The  NCTE  Act is referable to Entry 66 of List 1 of the VII Schedule to
\nthe Constitution and, therefore, the  State  Enactments  requiring  permission
\nwould be void.\n<\/p>\n
(v)  Section  14  (6)  of the NCTE Act would make it clear that after granting
\nrecognition under Section 14 (3), it is incumbent on the Examining Body, which
\nis the University, to grant affiliation which would go to show that  no  other
\npermission or approval is contemplated by the Act.\n<\/p>\n
6.   We  have considered the materials placed, relevant provisions of NCTE Act
\nand corresponding provisions in AICTE Act, The  Indian  Medical  Council  Act,
\n1956  and  the  common  order of the learned Single Judge as well as the rival
\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n
7.  Before considering the submissions made on either side, it would be useful
\nto refer the relevant provisions of the NCTE Act.\n<\/p>\n
“Section 2 (d) “examining body” means a University,  agency  or  authority  to
\nwhich  an  institution  is  affiliated  for conducting examinations in teacher
\neducation qualifications;\n<\/p>\n
Section 2 (e) “institution” means  an  institution  which  offers  courses  or
\ntraining in teacher education;\n<\/p>\n
Section  2 (i) “recognised institution” means an institution recognised by the
\nCouncil under section 14.\n<\/p>\n
Section 2 (j) “Regional Committee” means a committee established under section
\n20;\n<\/p>\n
Section 2 (l) “teacher education” means programmes of education,  research  or
\ntraining  of  persons  for  equipping  them  to teach at pre-primary, primary,
\nsecondary and senior secondary stages  in  schools,  and  includes  non-formal
\neducation, part-time education, adult education and correspondence education;\n<\/p>\n
Chapter   IV   of   the  Act  deals  with  recognition  of  teacher  education
\ninstitutions.\n<\/p>\n
Section 14.  Recognition  of  institutions  offering  course  or  training  in
\nteacher  education.-  (1)  Every  institution offering or intending to offer a
\ncourse or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day may, for
\ngrant of recognition under this Act,  make  an  application  to  the  Regional
\nCommittee  concerned  in  such form and in such manner as may be determined by
\nregulations:\n<\/p>\n
Provided xx xx xx
\n(2) The fee to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1)  shall
\nbe such as may be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  On  receipt  of  an  application  by  the  Regional  Committee  from  any
\ninstitution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining  from  the  institution
\nconcerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall,-\n<\/p>\n
(a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources,
\naccommodation,  library,  qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils such
\nother conditions required for proper functioning  of  the  institution  for  a
\ncourse  or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations,
\npass an order granting  recognition  to  such  institution,  subject  to  such
\nconditions as may be determined by regulations; or\n<\/p>\n
(b)  if  it  is  of  the  opinion  that  such  institution does not fulfil the
\nrequirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order  refusing  recognition
\nto such institution for reasons to be recorded in writing:
\nProvided xx xx<\/p>\n
(4)  Every  order  granting  or  refusing  recognition to an institution for a
\ncourse or  training  in  teacher  education  under  subsection  (3)  shall  be
\npublished  in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate
\naction to such institution and to the  concerned  examining  body,  the  local
\nauthority or the State Government and the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall
\ndiscontinue the course or training in teacher education from the  end  of  the
\nacademic  session  next  following  the  date of receipt of the order refusing
\nrecognition passed under clause ( b) of sub-section (3).
\n(6) Every examining body shall, on receipt  of  the  order  under  sub-section
\n(4),-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted;
\nor\n<\/p>\n
(b) cancel the affiliation of the  institution,  where  recognition  has  been
\nrefused.”\n<\/p>\n
Section  15 speaks about permission for a new course or training by recognised
\ninstitution which we are not concerned in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
“Section 16.  Affiliation body  to  grant  affiliation  after  recognition  or
\npermission  by  the  Council.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other
\nlaw for the time being in force, no examining body  shall,  on  or  after  the
\nappointed day,-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  grant  affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution,
\nor\n<\/p>\n
(b) hold examination, whether  provisional  or  otherwise,  for  a  course  or
\ntraining conducted by a recognised institution,
\nunless  the  institution  concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional
\nCommittee concerned, under section 14 or permission for a course  or  training
\nunder section 15.”\n<\/p>\n
Section  18  enables  a  person aggrieved by an order made under section 14 or
\nsection 15 or section 17 of the Act  to  prefer  an  appeal  to  the  Council.
\nSection 20 refers to establishment of Regional Committees and composition.  In
\nexercise  of the powers conferred under clauses (f) and (g) of sub-section (2)
\nof Section 32 read with Sections 14 and 15 of the NCTE Act, 1993 73 of  1993),
\nthe  National  Council for Teacher Education has framed Regulations called The
\nNational Council for Teacher Education Regulations, 2002 (“Regulations,  2002”
\nin short).  Among the Regulations, we are concerned with Regulation 6 (i):\n<\/p>\n
“Regulation 6.    Requirement  of  No  Objection  Certificate  from  the State
\nGovernment\/U.T.   Administration.-  (i)  Application  from  every  institution
\nseeking recognition to start a course or training in teacher education or from
\nan  existing  institution seeking permission to start a new course or training
\nand\/or increase in intake shall be accompanied by a No  Objection  Certificate
\n(NOC) from the State or Union Territory in which the institution is located.”\n<\/p>\n
8.  Since the main argument advanced on behalf of the educational institutions
\nwas  on  the basis of the decisions of the Supreme Court dealing with in AICTE
\nAct and the Indian Medical Council Act,1956, it would also be useful to  refer
\nthe relevant  provisions of the said Acts.  Section 10 (1)(k) of the AICTE Act
\nruns as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Section 10.  Functions of the Council.- (1) It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the
\nCouncil  to  take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring co-ordinated
\nand integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards
\nand for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act,  the  Council
\nmay,-\n<\/p>\n
(a) xx xx\n<\/p>\n
(k)   grant   approval   for  starting  new  technical  institutions  and  for
\nintroduction of new courses or programmes in consultation  with  the  agencies
\nconcerned;\n<\/p>\n
Section 10-A of The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Section 10-A.    Permission  for  establishment  of  new medical college, new
\ncourse of study, etc.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this  Act  or
\nany other law for the time being in force-\n<\/p>\n
(a) no person shall establish a medical college; or\n<\/p>\n
(b) no medical college shall-\n<\/p>\n
(i)   open  a  new  or  higher  course  of  study  or  training  (including  a
\npost-graduate course of study or training) which would  enable  a  student  of
\nsuch  course  or  training  to qualify himself for the award of any recognised
\nmedical qualification; or\n<\/p>\n
(ii) increase its admission capacity  in  any  course  of  study  or  training
\n(including a post-graduate course of study or training).
\nexcept  with  the  previous  permissions of the Central Government obtained in
\naccordance with the provisions of this section.”\n<\/p>\n
9.  It would also be useful to refer the relevant provisions  from  the  Tamil
\nNadu  Private  Colleges  (Regulation)  Act,  1976  wherein  the  word ‘Private
\ncollege’ is defined as:\n<\/p>\n
“Section 2 (8) “private college” means a college maintained by an  educational
\nagency  and approved by, or affiliated to, a university but does not include a
\ncollege.”\n<\/p>\n
(a) established or administered or maintained by the Central Government or the
\nGovernment or any local authority or any university; or\n<\/p>\n
(b) giving, providing or imparting religious instruction alone,  but  not  any
\nother instructions;”\n<\/p>\n
As  per  Section  3  of the Act, no person shall without the permission of the
\nGovernment and except in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in
\nsuch permission, establish, on or after the date of commencement of  the  Act,
\nany private  college.    In  addition  to the same, the private college has to
\nobtain necessary affiliation from the University concerned.    Section  4  (1)
\nmandates  that  educational  agency  of  every  private college proposed to be
\nestablished on or after the date of commencement of  the  Act  shall  make  an
\napplication  to  the  Government  for  permission  to  establish such college.
\nSub-section (2) of Section 4 prescribes certain  conditions  to  be  fulfilled
\nbefore making  an application for permission.  Section 5 speaks about grant of
\npermission by the Government and Section 6 deals with permission to be granted
\nin certain cases.  Rule 2 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges ( Regulation)
\nRules, 1976 defines the word “college” as follows;\n<\/p>\n
“Section 2 (b) “College” means and includes Arts and Science College, Teachers
\nTraining College, Physical Education  College,  Oriental  College,  School  or
\ninstitute  of  Social  Work  and  Music  College maintained by the educational
\nagency and approved by, or affiliated to the University;\n<\/p>\n
10.  Apart from these provisions, reliance was  placed  on  judgement  of  the
\nSupreme  Court in (i) Adhiyaman College of Engineering case [1995 (4) SCC 104]
\nin respect of scope of the AICTE Act,(ii) Thirumuruga Kripanandavariar’s  case
\n[1996  (3) SCC 15] in respect of the Indian Medical Council Act; and (iii) St.
\nJohns case [2003 (3 ) SCC 321].\n<\/p>\n
11.  Before going into the provisions of the NCTE Act, NCTE  Rules,  1997  and
\nRegulations,  2002,  let us consider the decisions of the Supreme Court in the
\nabove referred three cases.  In State of Tamil Nadu v.  Adhiyaman  Educational
\nand Research Institute<\/a> [(1995 ) 4 Supreme Court Cases 104], while dealing with
\nthe  provisions of AICTE Act, Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and
\nRules and Madras University Act with reference to  legislative  competence  of
\nthe State and Central Government, Their Lordships have held:  (para 30 and 41)<\/p>\n
“Para  30……Thus, so far as these matters are concerned, in the case of the
\ninstitutes imparting technical education, it is not the University Act and the
\nUniversity but it is the Central Act and the Council created  under  it  which
\nwill have  the  jurisdiction.   To that extent, after coming into operation of
\nthe Central Act, the provisions of the University Act will be deemed  to  have
\nbecome  unenforceable  in  case  of  technical  colleges  like the engineering
\ncolleges.  As has been pointed out earlier, the Central Act has  been  enacted
\nby  Parliament  under  Entry  66  of  List  I  to coordinate and determine the
\nstandards of technical institutions as well as under Entry  25  of  List  III.
\nThe  provisions  of  the  University  Act  regarding  affiliation of technical
\ncolleges like the engineering  colleges  and  the  conditions  for  grant  and
\ncontinuation  of  such  affiliation  by  the University shall, however, remain
\noperative but the conditions that are prescribed by the University  for  grant
\nand  continuance  of  affiliation will have to be in conformity with the norms
\nand guidelines prescribed by the Council in respect of matters entrusted to it
\nunder Section 10 of the Central Act.\n<\/p>\n
xx xx
\nPara 41.  What emerges from the above discussion is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
(i) xx xx\n<\/p>\n
(ii) To the extent that the State legislation is in conflict with the  Central
\nlegislation though the former is purported to have been made under Entry 25 of
\nthe  Concurrent  List  but  in  effect  encroaches  upon legislation including
\nsubordinate legislation made by the Centre under Entry 25  of  the  Concurrent
\nList  or  to  give  effect to Entry 66 of the Union List, it would be void and
\ninoperative.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) xx xx\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Whether the State law encroaches upon Entry 66 of the Union  List  or  is
\nrepugnant to the law made by the Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent list,
\nwill  have to be determined by the examination of the two laws and will depend
\nupon the facts of each case.”\n<\/p>\n
12.  In Thirumuruga Kirupananda  Variyar  Thavathiru  Sundaraswamigal  Medical
\nEducational and  Charitable  Trust  v.   State of Tamil Nadu<\/a> [(1996) 3 Supreme
\nCourt Cases 15], the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the  provisions
\nof the  Indian  Medical  Council  Act,  1  956  (Central  Act) and Dr.  M.G.R.
\nMedical University, Tamil  Nadu  Act  (State  Act).    The  appeals  filed  by
\nThirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundaraswamigal Medical Educational
\nand  Charitable  Trust  (”  Trust’  in short) relate to the establishment of a
\nmedical college at Salem in the State of Tamil Nadu.   The  Tamil  Nadu  State
\nlegislature had enacted Dr.  M.G.R.  Medical University, Tamil Nadu (Amendment
\nand Validation)  Act,  1989 on 6-7-90.  By the said Act which was brought into
\nforce with effect from 24-9-1987, a Proviso was inserted in subsection (5)  of
\nSection  5  of  the  Medical University Act whereby it was prescribed that “no
\ncollege shall be affiliated to the University unless  the  permission  of  the
\nGovernment  to  establish  such  college  has  been obtained and the terms and
\nconditions, if any, of such permission have been complied with”.  Similarly, a
\nproviso was also inserted in sub-section (7) of  Section  5  which  prescribes
\nthat “no institution shall be approved by the University unless the permission
\nof  the  Government  to  establish  such institution has been obtained and the
\nterms and conditions, if any, of such permission have been complied with”.\n<\/p>\n
The University, after conducting a joint inspection, rejected the  application
\nfor affiliation  submitted by the Trust.  The said order was challenged by way
\nof writ petition and a learned Single Judge of this Court, by judgement  dated
\n7-2-92,  quashed  the  said  order  of the University and remitted back to the
\nUniversity for re-consideration.  Feeling aggrieved by the  judgement  of  the
\nlearned  Single  Judge,  the  State filed an appeal before a Division Bench of
\nthis Court.  The Trust also filed an appeal against the said judgement of  the
\nlearned Single  Judge.    During  the  pendency  of  both  these  appeals, the
\nPresident  of  India  promulgated  the  Indian  Medical  Council   (Amendment)
\nOrdinance (  Ordinance  No.13  of  1992)  on  27-8-92.  The said Ordinance was
\nsubsequently replaced by the Indian Medical Council (Amendment)  Act,  1993  (
\nCentral  Act  No.31  of  1993) which was brought into force with effect from 2
\n7-8-92.  By the Central Act, Sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C were inserted in the
\nIndian Medical Council Act, 1956.  Section 10-A deals with  the  establishment
\nof  a  new  medical  college  or opening of a new or higher course of study or
\ntraining and  prescribes  that  this  can  be  done  only  with  the  previous
\npermission   of  the  Central  Government  obtained  in  accordance  with  the
\nprovisions of the said section.  In view of the said amendments,  the  Central
\nGovernment  was  impleaded  as  a party in the writ appeals which were pending
\nbefore the Division Bench of this Court.  The stand of the Central  Government
\nwas that after the promulgation of Ordinance No.13 of 1992, which was later on
\nreplaced  by  the Central Act, the Central Legislation has occupied the entire
\nfield and the  State  Legislation  must  be  treated  to  have  been  rendered
\ninoperative  and,  as  a  result,  the approval of the State Government was no
\nlonger necessary for establishing a medical college as required under  proviso
\nto sub-section  (5)  of Section 5 of the Medical University Act.  The Division
\nBench after holding that the amendment introduced in clause (5) of the Medical
\nUniversity Act by the State Act was not, in any way, affected by  the  Central
\nLegislation  and that after even after insertion of Section 10-A in the Indian
\nMedical Council Act,  1956  prior  permission  of  the  State  Government  was
\nrequired  for establishing a medical college, allowed the writ appeal filed by
\nthe State Government and  dismissed  the  writ  appeal  filed  by  the  Trust.
\nQuestioning the  same, the Trust has filed appeal to the Supreme Court.  After
\nconsidering the legislative power in respect of education  with  reference  to
\nvarious Entries in List provided in the Constitution and after considering the
\nMedical  University  Act-State Act and the Indian Medical Council Act (Central
\nAct), concluded thus:  (para 31)<\/p>\n
“Para 31.  It would thus appear that in Section 10-A  Parliament  has  made  a
\ncomplete  and  exhaustive provision covering the entire field for establishing
\nof new medical colleges in the country.  No further  scope  is  left  for  the
\noperation of the State Legislation in the said field which is fully covered by
\nthe law  made  by  Parliament.  Applying the tests laid down by this Court, it
\nmust be held that the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 5 of  the  Medical
\nUniversity  Act which was inserted by the State Act requiring prior permission
\nof the State Government for establishing a college  is  repugnant  to  Section
\n10-A inserted in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 by the Central Act which
\nprescribes  the  conditions  for  establishing  a  new  medical college in the
\ncountry.  The said repugnancy is, however, confined to the  field  covered  by
\nSection  10-A,  viz.,  establishment  of  a  new medical college and would not
\nextend to establishment of other colleges.”\n<\/p>\n
13.  In Jaya Gokul  Educational  Trust  v.    Commissioner  and  secretary  to
\nGovernment,  Higher  Education  Department [(2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 231],
\nthe  appellant  is  a  Trust  which  wanted  to  establish  a   self-financing
\nengineering  college and submitted an application during 1994-95 to University
\nof Kerala as well as to AICTE.  Ultimately, the  Government  refused  to  give
\npermission by their letter dated 16-8-1996.  Thereafter, the appellant filed a
\nwrit  petition before the Kerala High Court for quashing the said order of the
\nGovernment and for a  direction  to  sanction  and  establish  an  engineering
\ncollege.   The learned Single Judge of the kerala high Court, by his judgement
\ndated 14-1-1997,  allowed  the  writ  petition  and  directed  Mahatma  Gandhi
\nUniversity  to  consider the appellant’s application for permanent affiliation
\nwithout reference to the letter of the Government.  Against the said judgement
\nof the learned Single Judge, the Government filed a writ appeal.  The Division
\nBench of the kerala High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the  order  of
\nthe Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition.  As against the judgement of
\nthe  Division  Bench,  the  Jaya  Gokul  Educational Trust has filed an appeal
\nbefore the Supreme  Court.    After  considering  the  decision  in  Adhiyaman
\nEducational and Research Institute case (1995) 4 SCC 104 and the provisions of
\nAICTE Act,  particularly Section 10 (k), Their Lordships have held:  (para 17,
\n23, 28)<\/p>\n
“Para 17.  We shall now refer to the relevant  paras  of  the  above  judgment
\ndealing   with   the   question   of  “approval”  for  establishing  technical
\ninstitutions under section 10 (k) of the AICTE Act.  The Tamil Nadu  Rules  of
\n1976 made under the 1976 Act had no doubt excluded technical institutions from
\nthe  purview  of  the  Rules  but  this  Court pointed out that the Rules were
\ncapable of being amended so as to extend to such  technical  institutions  and
\nthat  if  they  were  so  extended,  the State Act of 1976 and the Rules would
\nrequire “approval” by the State Government and that would be  void.    It  was
\nstated (in SCC p.124, para 27) that inasmuch as the State Act
\n“will  overlap  and will be in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act
\nin  various   areas….,granting   approval   for   starting   new   technical
\ninstitutions…,inspection of  technical  institutions…    which matters are
\ncovered by the Central Act”.\n<\/p>\n
This Court then referred to the Madras University Act, 1923.  It was held (SCC
\np.126) that  Section  10  of  the  Central  Act  dealt  with  various  matters
\n(including  granting  approval  for  starting new technical institutions), and
\nthat so far as these matters were concerned
\n“it is not the University Act and the University but it is the Central Act and
\nthe Council created under it which  will  have  the  jurisdiction.    To  that
\nextent,  after the coming into operation of the Central Act, the provisions of
\nthe University Act will  be  deemed  to  have  become  unenforceable”.    (SCC
\npp.126-27, para 30)
\nThus,  in the two passages set out above, this Court clearly held that because
\nof Section 10(k) of the Central  Act  which  vested  the  powers  of  granting
\napproval in  the  Council,  the T.N.  Act of 1976 and the University Act, 1923
\ncould not deal with any questions of “approval” for establishment of technical
\ninstitutions.  All that was necessary was  that  under  the  Regulations,  the
\nAICTE Council had to consult them.”\n<\/p>\n
“Para 23.    Thus  we  hold,  in  the present case that there was no statutory
\nrequirement for obtaining the approval of the State  Government  and  even  if
\nthere was  one, it would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act.  The University
\nStatute 9(7) merely required that the  “views”  of  the  State  Government  be
\nobtained  before  granting  affiliation  and  this did not amount to obtaining
\n“approval”.  If the University statute required “approval”, it would have been
\nrepugnant to the AICTE Act….”\n<\/p>\n
“Para 28…..    Procedure  and  conditions  for  affiliation  could  not   be
\ninconsistent  with  the  provisions  of the Central Act, in particular Section
\n10(k) of the Regulation, and the University could not  seek  approval  of  the
\nGovernment.   The  University  was  also  one of the agencies consulted by the
\ncouncil of AICTE under Regulation 8.  Once that was  over,  and  approval  was
\ngranted  by  AICTE,  if  there  was  any default on the part of the College in
\ncompliance with the conditions of approval, the only remedy for the University
\nwas to bring those facts to the notice of AICTE so that the latter could  take
\nappropriate action.”\n<\/p>\n
14.   As  stated earlier, there were two sets of writ petitions, the first set
\nis to quash the orders  of  the  Universities  concerned  and  to  direct  the
\nUniversities  to consider their applications for affiliation without insisting
\nupon the orders\/permission from the State Government and the second set is for
\na Mandamus directing the  Universities  to  consider  their  applications  for
\naffiliation on   merits.     The  main  contentions  of  the  respondents\/writ
\npetitioners put-forward before the learned Single Judge were that  after  NCTE
\nAct  has  come into force, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (
\nRegulation) Act, 1976 and the  Statutes  of  the  Universities  which  require
\npermission  from  the  State  Government to establish a college as a condition
\nprecedent for the grant of affiliation would be inoperative.  It  was  further
\ncontended that the NCTE Act was a Parliamentary enactment and having regard to
\nthe  fact that the said enactment covered the entire field relating to teacher
\neducation, the provisions in the State enactment like the Tamil  Nadu  Private
\nColleges  (Regulation)  Act  or the Statutes of the Universities which require
\npermission of the State Government to establish a college as a  condition  for
\naffiliation  would  be repugnant to the Central law and hence void and have no
\neffect.\n<\/p>\n
15.  Learned Additional  Advocate  General  by  highlighting  the  differences
\nbetween  the  AICTE Act and the Indian Medical Council Act as well as the NCTE
\nAct, vehemently contended that the provisions in Sections 14  and  15  of  the
\nNCTE  Act  only  deal with the recognition of Teacher Training course in a new
\ninstitution or in an existing institution.  In other words, according to  him,
\nNCTE  Act  and  the  Regulations deal with the norms and standards for teacher
\neducation and the requirements for recognition of Teacher Training course.  He
\nalso contended that neither the Act nor the Regulation deal with the  approval
\nto the  establishment  of a college.  In such circumstances, according to him,
\nNCTE Act cannot be  said  to  cover  the  entire  field  relating  to  teacher
\neducation  in  colleges  and consequently the State enactment dealing with the
\npermission to establish the College would continue to be valid.\n<\/p>\n
16.  Per contra, Mr.  R.  Krishnamoorthy and Mr.  K.  Chandru, learned  senior
\ncounsel  appearing for the Institutions, advanced their argument that Sections
\n14 and 15 of the NCTE Act are similar to one contained in Section  10  (k)  of
\nthe  AICTE  Act or Section 10-A the Indian Medical Council Act, that in such a
\ncircumstance, the  judgement  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  Jaygokul  case  and
\nThirumurua  Kirupananda Variar’s case (cited supra) would clearly apply to the
\nNCTE Act and that, therefore, the finding and the ultimate conclusion  of  the
\nlearned Judge are to be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
A combined reading of the NCTE Act, more particularly Section 14 (6) read with
\nSection  16  would  go  to show that what is contemplated by the said Act is a
\nrecognition for a new institution under Section 14, and additional  course  in
\nan  existing  institution  under  section  15,  which  is  to  be  followed by
\naffiliation by the concerned University.\n<\/p>\n
17.  We also perused the different  terminology  or  words  like  “permission”
\n“approval”  “recognition” are used in the different provisions, the content of
\nall the provisions is the same.  In  other  words,  notwithstanding  different
\nterminology that has been used, the substance of the same is acceptance of the
\ninstitution  by  the  appropriate  authority which would be sufficient to hold
\nthat the Central Act covers the entire field relating  to  teacher  education.
\nThough  it  is  pointed  out  that  while the AICTE Act and the Indian Medical
\nCouncil Act refer to the grant of permission or approval for the establishment
\nof a college,  the  provisions  of  the  NCTE  Act  does  not  deal  with  the
\nestablishment of  a  college but covers the area of recognition alone.  In the
\nlight of the provisions referred  to  above  and  the  interpretation  of  the
\nSupreme  Court  with  reference  to  the same, we reject the contention of the
\nlearned Additional Advocate General and hold that the Central Act  covers  the
\nentire field of teacher education.\n<\/p>\n
18.  Now we shall consider the power to legislate on the subject of education.
\nPreviously  the said power was provided in Entry 11 of List II of Schedule VII
\nof Constitution of India.  By virtue of 42nd  Amendment  of  the  Constitution
\nwhich  was  given  effect  to from 3-1-1977, the subject of education has been
\nclassified as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Union list – list I – Entry 66
\nCo-ordination and  determination  of  standards  in  institutions  for  higher
\neducation or Research and Scientific and technical institutions.
\nConcurrent list – list III – Entry 25
\nEducation  including  technical education, medical education and Universities,
\nsubject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65, and 66 of list 1;  Vocational
\nand technical training of labour.”\n<\/p>\n
From  the  above  said re-classification of the legislative source of power on
\nthe subject of education, it is seen that the Union of India is  competent  to
\nenact laws  relating  to  higher  education,  technical institutions etc.  The
\nSupreme Court of India in interpreting the  said  Entries,  has  categorically
\nheld  that there can be no State enactment repugnant to the law enacted by the
\nParliament and that the provisions contained in any  of  the  State  enactment
\nsuch as Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Act, Madras University Act etc., which are
\ninconsistent  to  the  provisions contained in any of the Central Acts such as
\nAICTE Act, MCI Act, Dentist Act etc.,  are  ultra  vires  to  that  extent  of
\nrepugnancy.   Useful  reliance  was  also  placed  on  the  same judgements in
\nAdhiyaman college  case;  Thirumuruga  Kirupananda  Variar’s  case;  and  Jaya
\nGokul’s case which are in the following effect:-\n<\/p>\n
(1) 1995  (4)  SCC  104.  In this decision it has been categorically held that
\nneither the State Government nor the University have got power to enact law on
\nthe subject falls under Entry 66 of List I and that the existing  law  to  the
\nextent  of  inconsistent  with  the  provisions made in the AICTE Act is ultra
\nvires and unenforceable.\n<\/p>\n
(2) 1996 (3) SCC 15.  In this decision the Supreme Court has held  that  prior
\npermission  of  State  Government to start a new Medical College is invalid on
\nthe ground of repugnancy.  It is further  held  that  Section  5  (5)  of  the
\nMedical  University  Act  enacted  by  the  State  Act is held as repugnant to
\nSection 10-A of Indian Medical Council Act.\n<\/p>\n
(3) 2000 (5) SCC 231.  By re-capsulating the dictum laid down  in  Adhiyaman’s
\ncase,  the  Supreme Court specifically ruled that the University cannot impose
\nconditions for affiliation in contravention of the provisions contained in the
\nCentral Act viz., AICTE Act.  Thus, the position of law and  the  validity  of
\nexisting law of the State Enactments have been made crystal clear in the above
\nstated judgements of the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
19.  The Teacher Training Institution (B.Ed., course) is referable to Entry 66
\nof  List I and as such the Parliament promulgated the NCTE Act 1993 which came
\ninto force with effect from 1-7-19 95.  The NCTE framed  Regulations  2002  in
\nexercise of  power  under Sections 14, 15 and 32 of NCTE Act.  In this regard,
\nit is also relevant to note the  preamble  of  the  NCTE  Act  which  runs  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
“An  Act  to  provide  for the establishment of a National Council for Teacher
\nEducation with a view to achieving planned and coordinated development of  the
\nteacher  education  system  throughout  the country, the regulation and proper
\nmaintenance of norms and standards in the teacher  education  system  and  for
\nmatter connected therewith.”\n<\/p>\n
We have already referred to the Entry 66 of List I which is a Union list.  The
\npreamble  of  the  NCTE  Act reflects the said Entry i.e., Entry 66 of List I.
\nThe provisions contained in the NCTE Act and the Regulations  made  thereunder
\nregulate the establishment and administer the Teacher Training Institutes.  We
\nhave already  referred  to  the  various provisions of the NCTE Act.  Adequate
\nprovisions were made in regard to granting of recognition to start  a  Teacher
\nTraining Institute and to grant affiliation by examining body.\n<\/p>\n
20.  It is  the  submission  of  Mr.    K.    Chandru,  learned senior counsel
\nappearing for some of the Institutions that the NCTE Act is referable to Entry
\n66 of List 1 of the VII Schedule to the Constitution and, therefore, the State
\nEnactments requiring permission would be void.  A  reference  was  made  to  a
\njudgement  of the Supreme Court in Osmania University Teachers’ Association v.
\nState of Andhra Pradesh,<\/a> reported in 1987  4  SCC  671.    The  said  decision
\nrelates  to  question  as to the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh
\nCommissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986.  The question  that  was  posed
\nbefore the Supreme Court is whether the enactment falls within Entry 66 List I
\nor  Entry  25  List  III  –  Concurrent  List  of  the Seventh Schedule to the
\nConstitution.  The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has  upheld  its  validity  by
\nholding  that  the Act falls under the latter entry, but granted a certificate
\nfor leave  to  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court.    After  considering  various
\nprovisions  therein  and  Entry  66 of List I as well as Entry 25 of List III,
\nTheir Lordships have concluded thus:  (para 13, 14 and 15)<\/p>\n
“13.  Till January 3, 1977, education was a State subject under  Entry  11  in
\nList II.  By the Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976, Entry 11 was deleted and it
\nwas placed in the Concurrent List by enlarging the Entry 25, as set out above.\n<\/p>\n
14.   Entry  25  List III relating to education including technical education,
\nmedical education and universities has been  made  subject  to  the  power  of
\nParliament to legislate under Entries 63 to 66 of List I.  Entry 66 List I and
\nEntry 25  List  III should, therefore, be read together.  Entry 66 gives power
\nto Union to see that a required standard of higher education in the country is
\nmaintained.   The  standard  of  Higher  Education  including  scientific  and
\ntechnical  should  not  be  lowered  at  the  hands of any particular State or
\nStates.   Secondly,  it  is  the  exclusive  responsibility  of  the   Central
\nGovernment  to  coordinate  and  determine the standards for higher education.
\nThat power includes  the  power  to  evaluate,  harmonise  and  secure  proper
\nrelationship to  any  project of national importance.  It is needless to state
\nthat such a co-ordinate action in higher education with proper  standards,  is
\nof paramount  importance  to  national  progress.    It  is  in  this national
\ninterest, the legislative field in regard to ‘education’ has been  distributed
\nbetween List I and List III of the Seventh Schedule.\n<\/p>\n
15.   The  Parliament has exclusive power to legislate with respect to matters
\nincluded in List I.  The State has no power at all in regard to such  matters.
\nIf  the  State  legislates  on  the subject falling within List I that will be
\nvoid, inoperative and unenforceable.”\n<\/p>\n
In the light of the provisions in the NCTE Act which we have already  referred
\nto,  the  above judgement of the Supreme Court [(1987) 4 SCC 6 71] is directly
\non the point and the contention relating to want of State power with reference
\nto Entries in the Constitution is wellfounded.\n<\/p>\n
21.  It is not in dispute that the field relating to education was  originally
\nin Entry 11 of List 2 and Entry 25 of List III.  Entry 11 has been deleted and
\nits content  transferred to entry 25 of list III.  The said entry namely 25 is
\nsubject to entry 63 to 66 of list 1 of the VII Schedule to  the  Constitution.
\nEntry  66 is the one dealing with co-ordination and determination of standards
\nin institution for higher education or research and scientific  and  technical
\ninstitutions.   The  provisions  in the NCTE Act, which lays down standards in
\nteacher education or matters relating to co-ordination would be  referable  to
\nArticle 66  of list I of the VII Schedule to the Constitution.  Though learned
\nAdditional Advocate General would submit that it is incorrect to  assume  that
\nall the provisions in the entire Act is referable to Entry 66 of list 1 and no
\npart  of  it is referable to entry 25 of list 3 and major portions of the NCTE
\nAct would be referable to entry 25 of list 3 while only those portions dealing
\nwith standards of teacher education would be referable to entry 66 of list  1,
\nin the light of the earlier discussion and the conclusion of the Supreme Court
\nin  Osmania University Teachers’ Association case (cites supra), we are unable
\nto accept the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General.  The entire
\ncase of the writ petitioners-various educational institutions is based on  the
\nallegations  that  the  Central Act which had been enacted, later has rendered
\nthe earlier State Act repugnant and void  in  terms  of  Article  254  of  the
\nConstitution.   Though  learned  Additional Advocate General distinguishes the
\njudgement in Osmania University Teachers’ Association case, on the ground that
\nthe said Act was passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislature which is similar  to
\nthe UGC Act (a Parliamentary Act) and hence the Supreme Court in the aforesaid
\ncase  held  that  State  Legislature  was  incompetent  to pass the law as the
\nprovisions of law was referable to entry 66 of list I, in  the  light  of  our
\nearlier  discussion  and the provisions of the NCTE Act including the preamble
\netc., and as interpreted in Osmania University Teachers’ Association case,  we
\nare  unable to accept the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General.
\nFurther, as observed by the Supreme Court, if  a  subject  of  legislation  is
\ncovered  by  items 63 to 66 even if it otherwise falls within the larger field
\nof “education including Universities” power to legislate on that subject  must
\nlie with the Parliament.  At the end, the Supreme Court has held:  (para 26)
\n“26.  In Prem  Chand  Jain v.  R.K.  Chhabra<\/a> [(1984) 2 SCR 883] this Court has
\nheld that the UGC Act falls under Entry 66 of List I.  It is then  unthinkable
\nas  to  how  the  State could pass a parallel enactment under Entry 25 of List
\nIII, unless it encroaches Entry 66 of List I.  Such an encroachment is  patent
\nand obvious.   The Commissionerate Act is beyond the legislative competence of<\/p>\n
the State legislature and is hereby declared void and inoperative.”
\nThe said decision is applicable to the facts of  the  cases  on  hand  in  all
\nfours.\n<\/p>\n
22.   Now  we  shall  consider  the  functions  of  the  Council  (NCTE  Act),
\nrecognition of the  institutions  offering  courses  or  training  in  teacher
\neducation,   affiliating  body  to  grant  affiliation  after  recognition  or
\npermission by the council, regional committees, requirement of  NOC  from  the
\nState Government\/Union territory administration from NCTE Act.  Section 12 (a)
\nof  NCTE  Act  undertakes  surveys  and studies relating to various aspects of
\nteacher education and publish the  result  thereof.    Section  12  (b)  makes
\nrecommendations to the Central and State Governments, Universities, University
\nGrants  Commission and recognized institutions in the matter of preparation of
\nsuitable plans and programmes in the field of teacher education.   Section  12\n<\/p>\n
(c)  co-ordinates  and  monitors  teacher education and its development in the
\ncountry.  Section 12 (e) lays down norms for any specified category of courses
\nor training in teacher education, including the minimum  eligibility  criteria
\nfor  admission thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of
\nthe course, course contents and mode of curriculum.  Section 12 (1) formulates
\nschemes for various  levels  of  teacher  education  and  identify  recognized
\ninstitutions  and  set up new institutions for teacher development programmes.
\nSection 14  speaks  about  recognition  of  institutions  offering  course  or
\ntraining  in  teacher  education and Section 16 relates to affiliating body to
\ngrant affiliation after recognition or permission by  the  Council.    Another
\nimportant  thing which was brought to our notice in the NCTE Act is Section 20
\nwhich speaks about Regional Committees.  As per Section 20 (3),  the  Regional
\nCommittee shall consist of the following members, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
a)a Member to be nominated by the Council;\n<\/p>\n
b)one representative from each of the State
\nand the Union territories of the region,
\nto be nominated by the respective States
\nand the Union territories;\n<\/p>\n
c)such number of persons, having special
\nknowledge and experience in matters
\nrelating to teacher education, as may be
\ndetermined by regulations.\n<\/p>\n
As  rightly  pointed  out  by  the  learned  senior  counsel appearing for the
\ninstitutions, though it is stated that the State Government alone is competent
\nto consider the need and the  demand  of  the  teacher  education,  employment
\npotentialities etc., in view of the fact that the Regional Committee comprises
\na representative  from the State and Union territory.  As rightly stated those
\nfactors can be very well projected before the  Regional  committee  through  a
\nrepresentative of  a  State\/ Union territory.  We have already referred to the
\nNCTE Regulation, 2002 .  Among the Regulations, Regulation 6 is relevant which
\nspeaks about requirement of NOC  from  the  State  Government\/Union  territory
\nadministration.   As  per Section 9, the Regional Committee, before passing an
\norder for grant of recognition\/permission under section 14 or  section  15  of
\nthe  Act,  shall  satisfy itself, on the basis of scrutiny and verification of
\nfacts as contained in the  application  for  recognition\/grant  of  permission
\nand\/or  inspection of the institution, where considered necessary or any other
\nmanner deemed fit, that the institution fulfils the Norms and  Standards  laid
\ndown for the relevant teacher education course as given in the Appendices 3 to
\n14 of  these Regulations.  As per Section 9 of the Act, the Regional Committee
\nshall satisfy itself, on the basis of scrutiny and verification  of  facts  as
\ncontained  in  the  application  for  recognition\/grant  of  permission and\/or
\ninspection of the institution, where considered necessary or any other  manner
\ndeemed fit, that the institution fulfils the norms and standards laid down for
\nthe  relevant  teacher  education course as given in the Appendices 3 to 14 of
\nthese Regulations.    As  rightly  pointed  out  by  the   counsel   for   the
\ninstitutions,  a combined reading of the above said provisions of the NCTE Act
\nmake it clear  that  the  Regional  Committee  constituted  under  section  20
\nincludes  representatives  of  the  State  Government also and is competent to<\/p>\n
deliberate  on  the  financial  resources,  requisite   infra-structural   and
\ninstructional  facilities  and  such  other particulars including the need for
\nstarting of institutions etc., while granting recognition.\n<\/p>\n
23.  In so far as the condition as to NOC from the  State  Government  to  get
\nrecognition  from the NCTE, as stipulated in Regulation 6 of NCTE Regulations,
\n2002 is concerned, learned senior counsel appearing for the institutions  very
\nmuch relied  on  a  judgement  of  the  Supreme  Court rendered in St.  John’s
\nTeacher Training Institute v.  Regional Director, reported in (2003) 3 Supreme
\nCourt cases 321.  The said case arose under the very same provisions,  namely,
\nNCTE Act.   When  the  appellant\/St.  Johns Teacher Training Institute made an
\napplication to the Regional Director, National Council for  Teacher  Education
\n(Southern  Committee),  Bangalore  seeking permission for starting a course in
\nelementary education training in the year 1999-2000, the  respondents  therein
\nreplied  that  in  the  absence  of  a no-objection certificate from the State
\nGovernment, the application would be treated as incomplete and  would  not  be
\nconsidered.  The appellant unsuccessfully challenged before the Karnataka High
\nCourt  the  vires  of  Regulations  5  (e) and (f) of the National Council for
\nTeacher Education Regulations, 1995 in so far as they direct obtaining  of  an
\nNOC from  the  State  Government.    The  connected  writ petition filed under
\nArticle 32 also sought similar reliefs.  It was contended before  the  Supreme
\nCourt  that the States are also vitally interested in education and especially
\nthe professional courses.  It was further stated that only  the  States  which
\ncould  correctly assess and know the extent of requirement of trained manpower
\nand the supply of trained teachers keeping  in  view  retirements,  change  of
\noccupation etc.    It  was  also put-forward before the Supreme Court that the
\nState Governments would also keep a track of the number  of  trained  teachers
\nregistered   with   the  employment  exchanges  awaiting  employment  and  the
\npossibility of their deployment in the near future.    While  considering  the
\nabove contentions, Their Lordships have held as follows:- (para 19)<\/p>\n
“19.   Regulation 6 (ii) of these Regulations provides that the endorsement of
\nthe State Government\/Union Territory Administration in regard to issue of  NOC
\nwill  be  considered  by the Regional Committee while taking a decision on the
\napplication for recognition.  This provision shows that even if the NOC is not
\ngranted by the State Government or Union Territory concerned and the  same  is
\nrefused,  the  entire  matter will be examined by the Regional Committee while
\ntaking a decision on the application for recognition.  Therefore, the grant of
\nrefusal of an NOC by the State Government or Union Territory is not conclusive
\nor binding and the views expressed by the State Government will be  considered
\nby  the  Regional  Committee  while taking the decision on the application for
\ngrant of recognition.  In view of these new Regulations the  challenge  raised
\nto  the  validity of Regulations 5 (e) and (f) has been further whittled down.
\nThe role of the state Government is  certainly  important  for  supplying  the
\nrequisite  data  which  is  essential for formation of opinion by the Regional
\nCommittee while taking a decision under sub-section (3) of Section 14  of  the
\nAct.  Therefore no exception can be taken to such a course of action.”\n<\/p>\n
It  is  clear  from  the above decision that even if NOC is not granted by the
\nState Government or Union Territory concerned and the same is refused,  it  is
\nfor  the  Regional  Committee  to  take  a  decision  on  the  application for
\nrecognition irrespective of the decision of  the  State  Government  or  Union
\nTerritory.  The above decision also makes it clear that the Regional Committee
\nis  empowered  to  consider the claim for recognition even in a case where the
\nstate Government has refused to NOC.  In view of the said position of  law  as
\nstated  supra,  if  this  Regional  Committee  is satisfied with regard to the
\nfulfilment of requirements for grant of recognition, it is  the  duty  of  the
\nexamining  body,  namely,  Universities to grant affiliation without insisting
\nupon the institutions to produce the prior permission of the State Government.
\nInasmuch  as  the  Universities  passed   orders   requiring   the   education
\ninstitutions  to  get  prior  permission  of the State Government based on the
\nresolution of their Syndicate in accordance with their  respective  University
\nAct  and Statutes and Tamil Nadu Private Colleges ( Regulation) Act is illegal
\nand contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India.\n<\/p>\n
24.  To sum up the sum and substance of the contentions  raised  by  the  Writ
\nAppellants  i.e.,  State of Tamil Nadu and Universities is that the insistence
\nof prior permission from the State  Government  for  granting  affiliation  is
\njustified  in terms of Section 2 (b) read with Section 7 of Tamil Nadu Private
\nColleges (Regulation) Act and the Statutes framed under  concerned  University
\nAct  inasmuch  as the same has not been covered under the Central Act, namely,
\nNCTE Act.  The said claim is liable to be dismissed in  view  of  the  settled
\nposition  of  law  as  declared by the Supreme Court in Adhiyaman College case
\n(1995 (4) SCC 104), Thirumuruga Kirubananda Variyar’s case (1996 (3) SCC  15),
\nand  Jaya  Gokul’s  case (2000 (5) SCC 231) inasmuch as the very same issue of
\npower to stipulate condition for affiliation, disaffiliation were the  subject
\nmatter of  those decisions.  In para 28 of Jaya Gokul’s case (cited supra), it
\nhas been specifically held that procedure and conditions for affiliation could
\nnot be inconsistent with the provisions of  the  Central  Act,  in  particular
\nSection  10-(k) of the AICTE Act and the University could not seek approval of
\nthe Government.  A combined reading of Sections  14  (4),  14  (6)  read  with
\nSection 16 of the NCTE Act obligated the affiliating body to grant affiliation
\non receiving information as to recognition of an institution from the NCTE and
\nthus  leave  no discretion to affiliating body to stipulate any more condition
\nespecially condition of imposing prior  permission  of  the  State  Government
\nwhich would render the order of recognition as ineffective.  The scheme of the
\nNCTE  Act  and  the  Regulations  made  thereunder as has been interpreted the
\nvarious provisions of the NCTE Act and the Regulations made thereunder as held
\nby the Supreme Court in St.  John’s Case (2003 (3) SCC  321)  wherein  it  was
\nheld  that  the  Regional Committee of NCTE is empowered to consider the claim
\nfor recognition independently notwithstanding the refusal of NOC by the  State
\nGovernment.   Once  the  recognising  body held that the refusal of NOC by the
\nState Government would not stand in the way of granting recognition, it  would
\nbe  ex-facie  illegal  to  insist  very  same rigour condition for granting of
\naffiliation by one of the agencies, namely, Universities under the  NCTE  Act.
\nWe  are  satisfied that the NCTE Act contained enough provisions pertaining to
\ngranting of affiliation and that the action of the Writ  Appellant  University
\nin  imposing  a  precondition of prior permission from the State Government as
\nindicated in the impugned  order  constitutes  error  of  law,  arbitrary  and
\nopposed  to the object and scheme of the NCTE Act besides being opposed to the
\nlaw declared by the Supreme Court.    As  explained  earlier,  the  provisions
\ncontained  in Sections 14 (4); 14 (6) and 16 of the NCTE Act is wider in scope
\nthan Section 10(k) of AICTE Act and Section 10-A of Indian Medical Council Act
\ninasmuch as the NCTE Act takes in its fold the matter of granting affiliation.
\nFurther, the NCTE Act contains adequate  provisions  as  regards  granting  of
\naffiliation  as  automatic  one  in  respect  of  institutions which have been
\ngranted with recognition by the NCTE.   Hence,  the  contention  of  the  writ
\nappellants  that  the provisions of the State Enactment is only a supplemental
\nand not supplant to the Central Act cannot be accepted.  The  contention  that
\nNCTE  Act  deals  with  recognition  only and not establishment of institution
\netc., have no substance for the reasons stated supra as  also  on  the  ground
\nthat  the  word,  ‘recognition’  as  employed  in  NCTE  Act and ‘approval’ as
\nmentioned in Section 10(k) of the AICTE Act and 10-A  of  the  Indian  Medical
\nCouncil Act would give the same meaning in legal parlance having regard to the
\nobject of  those  provisions  contained  in  the  respective  enactment.   The
\nargument that Rule 2 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges  (Regulation)  Act
\nincludes  teacher  training  colleges  and  hence,  the  impugned condition is
\njustified is liable to be rejected on the grounds that Rule  cannot  over-ride
\nthe provisions of the Act and that the State cannot enact law repugnant to the
\nprovisions  contained  in  the  Central Act as has been repeatedly held by the
\nSupreme Court of India.  As rightly pointed out, the University is one of  the
\nagencies  under  the NCTE Act and is obligated to grant affiliation on receipt
\nof order of recognition in respect of any technical institution  in  terms  of
\nSection 14  (4) read with Section 14 (6) of the NCTE Act.  Though it is stated
\nthat the function of granting affiliation is legislative  in  nature  and  the
\nsame cannot be abdicated to outside agency.  In the instant case, a perusal of
\nthe  impugned  order discloses that the same came to be passed on the basis of
\nthe resolution of the Syndicate which in turn rely on the provisions contained
\nin the Tamil Nadu Private  Colleges  (Regulation)  Act  ignoring  the  express
\nprovisions viz., Sections 14 (4)l 14 (6) of the NCTE Act.\n<\/p>\n
25.  Before winding up, as pointed out by the Government and the Universities,
\nit  is  to  be  noted  that in so far as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned,
\nthere  is  a  large  body  of  trained  teachers   languishing   without   job
\nopportunities  having registered themselves with various employment exchanges.
\nIt is also their grievance that taking advantage of these private  educational
\ninstitutions  are exploiting the situation by offering jobs on temporary basis
\nendlessly without any hope of regularisation for meagre remuneration which the
\nalready starved trained teachers accept in order to keep their body  and  soul
\ntogether.   This  in  effect  sets  at  naught the very purpose of maintaining
\nstandards in teacher education for which  purpose  alone  the  NCTE  has  been
\nestablished.   Some  of  the  appellants-Universities  have  placed  before us
\nvarious orders of this Court giving directions for implementation of  the  UGC
\nscales  to  the  teaching  staff  which  has  been  consistently denied by the
\nmanagements of the concerned institutions on the apparent ground that  college
\nteachers  do  not  deserve  UGC  scales  as  they  do  not  possess prescribed
\nqualification and that  the  appointments  are  purely  temporary,  which  are
\nagainst the  judgement  of this Court as well as the Supreme Court.  The worst
\nexploited lot are the school teachers.  In view of  the  above,  we  hope  and
\ntrust  the  Regional  Committee (constituted under Section 20 of the NCTE Act)
\nwherein one person is  representing  the  State  and  Union  Territory,  their
\ngrievance\/objections\/suggestions  have  to  be  taken  note of by the Regional
\nCommittee before recognising any institution.  Inasmuch as the  responsibility
\nand burden lies on the State Government, the views of the State Government has
\nto be given importance by the Regional Committee while granting recognition of
\nteacher training institution.\n<\/p>\n
Under  these circumstances, we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at
\nby the learned Single Judge and we do not find any merit in the Appeals  filed
\nby the  State  Government and the Universities.  Consequently, all the Appeals
\nare dismissed with  the  above  observation.    No  costs.     The   connected
\nmiscellaneous petitions are closed.  In view of our conclusion, the respective
\nuniversities  are  directed  to  pass  orders  on the applications made by the
\nrespective institutions within a period of two weeks from the date of  receipt
\nof a copy of this Judgment.\n<\/p>\n
R.B.\n<\/p>\n
Index:- Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Internet:- Yes.\n<\/p>\n
To:-\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Secretary to Government,
\nHigher Education Department,
\nFort St.  George, Chennai-600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Regional Director,
\nNational Council for Teacher
\nEducation, C.S.D.  Building,
\nHMT Post, Bangalore-560 031  <\/p>\n
3.  The Director of College
\nEducation, Chennai-600 006.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Bharathidasan University vs Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan on 23 February, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 23\/02\/2005 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K. KRISHNAN Writ Appeal No. 4204 of 2004 and Writ Appeal Nos., 4205, 4237, 4240, 4241 of 2004, and 104, 150, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-129157","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBharathidasan University vs Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan on 23 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bharathidasan University vs Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan on 23 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-10T14:57:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"52 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bharathidasan University vs Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan on 23 February, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-10T14:57:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005\"},\"wordCount\":9995,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005\",\"name\":\"Bharathidasan University vs Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan on 23 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-10T14:57:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bharathidasan University vs Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan on 23 February, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bharathidasan University vs Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan on 23 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bharathidasan University vs Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan on 23 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-10T14:57:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"52 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bharathidasan University vs Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan on 23 February, 2005","datePublished":"2005-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-10T14:57:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005"},"wordCount":9995,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005","name":"Bharathidasan University vs Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan on 23 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-10T14:57:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathidasan-university-vs-dhanalakshmi-srinivasan-on-23-february-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bharathidasan University vs Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan on 23 February, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129157","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=129157"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129157\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129157"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129157"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129157"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}