{"id":136393,"date":"2009-01-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2"},"modified":"2016-02-11T05:35:39","modified_gmt":"2016-02-11T00:05:39","slug":"gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"Gangadhar vs The Union Of India on 7 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Gangadhar vs The Union Of India on 7 January, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: B.H. Marlapalle, A. H. Joshi<\/div>\n
                                         1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n           WRIT PETITION NO. 2701 OF 2008\n\n    1. Gangadhar s\/o Nilkanth Shende\n      and anr.                                       ..Petitioners\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n         Vs.\n\n    1. The Union of India, through its\n      Secretary and ors.                             ..Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n                          \n    Mr. Anand Parchure for petitioners.\n\n    Mr. S.K. Mishra for respondent no.1.\n    Mr. N.W. Sambre, Government Pleader for respondent\n                         \n    no.2.\n    Mr. C.S. Kaptan for respondent nos.3 and 4.\n    Mr. R.L. Khapre for respondent no.5.\n    Mr. F.T. Mirza for respondent nos.6,7, 32, 34, 36\n      \n\n    and 37.\n    Mr. A.S. Kilor for respondent no.8.\n   \n\n\n\n    Mr. M.R. Johrapukar for respondent no.9.\n    Mr. N.N. Thengre for respondent no.10\n    Mr. S.J. Khandalkar for respondent nos.11 and 12.\n    Mr. R. Ghughe and Mr.V. Rakh for respondent nos.13\n    to 25.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Mr. S.S. Ghate for respondent no.26\n    Mrs. M. Barabde for respondent no.27.\n    Mr. N. Vyawhare for respondent no.28.\n    Mr. M.G. Gawande for respondent no.33.\n    Mr. Kalwaghe for respondent no. 35.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Mr. S.A. Gordey for respondent no.38.\n    Mrs. S.W. Deshpande for respondent nos.39 and 40.\n    Mr. V.D. Gunale for respondent nos.42 to 46.\n    Mr. S.R. Nanaware for intervenor.\n\n\n\n\n                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::\n                                       2\n\n\n               CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE &\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                 \n                      A.H. JOSHI, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
         Date of Reserving    : December 15, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
         Date of Pronouncement : January 07, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
    JUDGMENT: (Per B.H. Marlapalle,J.)<\/p>\n
    1. This petition under Article 226 of the
\n    Constitution came to be filed before this Court on<\/p>\n
    19\/6\/2008 and after issuing notices to the respondents
\n    interim orders were passed from time to time including<\/p>\n
    the order dated 29\/8\/2008 and by the said order the
\n    earlier order dated 13\/8\/2008 was modified as under:\n<\/p>\n
       “……We now permit the N.C.T.E. not only to<\/p>\n
        process the proposals received for grant or
\n        refusal of the permission but is also entitled
\n        to take a decision whether the permission to
\n        open new D.Ed. College should be granted or<\/p>\n
        refused. However, it is made clear that the
\n        permissions, if any, granted to open new D.Ed.\n<\/p>\n
        Colleges shall be subject to the result of the
\n        present writ petition and such colleges shall
\n        not admit the students without permission of
\n        this Court.”\n<\/p>\n
    2. This order came to be challenged by the Akhil
\n    Maharashtra Navin Adhyapak Vidyalaya Sansthachalak
\n    Sanghatna (Respondent No.5) in SLP (Civil) No. 28012-
\n    28013\/08 and on 1\/12\/2008 the SLP came to be dismissed<\/p>\n
    in terms of the following order passed by the Supreme
\n    Court:-\n<\/p>\n
       “Permission to file SLP dismissed. As the
\n        SLPs are against interim order, we are not
\n        inclined to pass any order. Accordingly, the
\n        special leave petitions are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
          However, as the matters relate to the
\n          admission of the students in D.Ed. Colleges,<\/p>\n
          we request the High Court to dispose off the
\n          applications pending before it at an early
\n          date.”\n<\/p>\n
    3. This petition was, therefore, heard from time
\n    to time and the National Council for Teacher Education
\n    (the Council for short) has filed reply as well as<\/p>\n
    additional reply and as per our directions the report
\n    submitted by the Kaul Committee as well as the
\n    original files pertaining to the applications which
\n    are allowed by the Western Regional Committee (the
\n    Committee for short) of the Council, have also been<\/p>\n
    placed before us. The writ petition came to be
\n    registered as a public interest litigation petition as<\/p>\n
    per the administrative order dated 14\/10\/2008. Some
\n    of the respondents have filed written notes of
\n    arguments.\n<\/p>\n
    4.   Hence, Rule.\n<\/p>\n
    5. By consent of the parties, the Rule is made
\n    returnable forthwith. All the respondents waive<\/p>\n
    service. We have also noted that the order dated
\n    29\/8\/2008 was incorporated in all the recognition<\/p>\n
    orders which are the subject matter of challenge
\n    before us and the Respondent No.5 association claims
\n    to represent all the new colleges which have been
\n    granted recognition during the pendency of this
\n    petition. Hence, no separate notice is necessary to<\/p>\n
    those colleges which are not before us and it was
\n    necessary for all of them to apply for being impleaded
\n    as additional respondents in case they wanted to be
\n    heard in this petition.\n<\/p>\n
    6. The petitioners, who are the teachers and
\n    permanent residents of Chandrapur district have prayed
\n    for the following reliefs:-\n<\/p>\n
         “a) to issue a writ of mandamus\/certiorari or
\n          any other appropriate writ, order or direction
\n          to respondent no.2 (State of Maharashtra) to<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
        make a need based assessment and based
\n        thereupon prepare a Master Plan for proposing<\/p>\n
        opening of new D.Ed. Colleges within the
\n        State of Maharashtra, and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       b) to direct the respondent – NCTE to act
\n        according to such recommendations only by the
\n        State Government and grant permission to new
\n        D.Ed. Colleges only on that basis.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    7. As per the order dated 29\/8\/2008 passed by
\n    this Court and noted hereinbefore, the Council was
\n    permitted not only to process the proposals for grant
\n    of refusal of permission but also to take decisions on<\/p>\n
    these applications with a further condition that the
\n    permissions, if any, granted to open new D.Ed.\n<\/p>\n
    Colleges shall be subject to the result of the present
\n    writ petition and such Colleges shall not admit the
\n    students without permission of this Court. It is,
\n    thus, clear that we are also required to consider the<\/p>\n
    legality of the permissions granted by the Council
\n    through the Committee. Admittedly, none of these
\n    Colleges who have been granted permission\/ recognition
\n    have admitted any students as of now by obtaining<\/p>\n
    leave of this court.\n<\/p>\n
    8. On 9\/9\/2008 this Court had directed the
\n    Regional Director (Western Region) of the Council to
\n    file affidavit giving the following details:-\n<\/p>\n
       a) When the State Government has taken a<\/p>\n
        categorical stand that there is no need to
\n        establish any new D.Ed. Colleges in the State
\n        of Maharashtra and the existing strength of
\n        D.Ed. Colleges is adequate enough to cater to
\n        the need of people, whether the NCTE has<\/p>\n
        undertaken any independent survey and on the
\n        basis thereof, has come to the conclusion that
\n        the stand taken by the State Government does
\n        not show the correct picture and there is a
\n        need to establish new D.Ed. Colleges in the
\n        State.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
       b) What is the criteria and procedure on the
\n        basis of which the applications for grant of<\/p>\n
        permission submitted by individuals are
\n        processed by NCTE?\n<\/p>\n
       c) If the nation as a whole is taken as one
\n        unit, some States are having more population
\n        than the other smaller States, in such a
\n        situation, how the NCTE decides the number of<\/p>\n
        D.Ed. Colleges necessary to cater to the
\n        needs of that State. Is there any Government
\n        Resolution, Circular or provisions of NCTE Act
\n        or Rules made therein which can throw some
\n        light on this aspect?\n<\/p>\n
       d) Whether the NCTE has taken into<\/p>\n
        consideration the percentage of literacy in
\n        the State of Maharashtra before granting
\n        permission to the new D.Ed. Colleges and
\n        since the whole country is treated to be one<\/p>\n
        unit, whether this criteria is made applicable
\n        to the other States while granting recognition
\n        to the new D.Ed. Colleges?\n<\/p>\n
       e) Whether the Diploma in Education obtained
\n        in the State of Maharashtra is recognised in<\/p>\n
        other States of our country and vice versa.\n<\/p>\n
    9. At this stage we also deem it appropriate to
\n    reproduce the following observations made by this
\n    Court in the order dated 9\/9\/2008 as they are relevant<\/p>\n
    for deciding the writ petition:-\n<\/p>\n
       “………We are aware that the NCTE being the
\n        parent body is not bound by the opinion of the
\n        State Government. However, the opinion of the<\/p>\n
        State Government cannot be brushed aside
\n        lightly unless the NCTE, on the basis of
\n        independent evidence, has come to the
\n        conclusion that there is a need of 349 new
\n        D.Ed. Colleges in the whole State of
\n        Maharashtra and, therefore, the affidavit must
\n        contain the said procedure or details of<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
           survey, if any, conducted in this regard by
\n           the NCTE.”\n<\/p>\n
    10. Though a statement was made before this court
\n    on 9\/9\/2008 that the Council has granted recognition<\/p>\n
    to 349 new D.Ed. Colleges, the additional affidavit
\n    in reply filed by the respondent nos.3 and 4 in
\n    compliance with the order passed by this Court on
\n    18\/10\/2008 makes it clear that the Committee has<\/p>\n
    granted recognition to in all 291 new D.Ed. Colleges
\n    during its 101st to 109th meetings. In its additional
\n    affidavit dated 12\/9\/2008 the Council has stated that
\n    it had prospective plan for the years 2003-07 but in
\n    exercise of powers and functions under Sections 14 and<\/p>\n
    15 of the NCTE Act, there is no requirement of need
\n    based survey in any State or Union Territory. The<\/p>\n
    criteria and procedure for processing the applications
\n    to grant recognition are given in Sections 14 and 15
\n    of the NCTE Act read with NCTE (Recognition, Norms and
\n    Procedure) Regulations, 2007. The decision to open<\/p>\n
    new D.Ed. institutions has nothing to do with the
\n    population of the concerned State and the only
\n    criteria are that whether the applicant institution
\n    fulfils the prescribed norms and standards or not.\n<\/p>\n
    The grant of recognition under Section 14 and
\n    permission under Section 15 was not based on the need<\/p>\n
    for further D.Ed. Colleges in the particular locality
\n    in the State of Maharashtra and the only criteria are
\n    fulfilment of the prescribed norms and standards. The
\n    Committee has further submitted that it has no concern
\n    with the percentage of the literacy in the State of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra and it is concerned with the overall
\n    percentage of literacy in the country. It has been
\n    further clarified that the D.Ed. obtained from any
\n    institutions recognised by the Council is valid in all
\n    the States and Union Territories just as any<\/p>\n
    Engineering Course and is valid in all the States and
\n    Union Territories. The respondent nos.3 and 4 have
\n    heavily relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court
\n    in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Sant
\n    Dnyaneshwar Sikshan Sanstha and ors.<\/a> [2006 (9) SCC<\/p>\n
    01].\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
    11. We must also refer to the connected writ<\/p>\n
    petitions filed during the pendency of the instant
\n    petition. Writ Petition No.4070 of 2008 filed by two
\n    social workers (one from Bhandara and the other from<\/p>\n
    Nagpur) supports the instant petition in asmuchas it
\n    prays for directions to the Council to grant
\n    recognitions to the new D.Ed. colleges only if
\n    recommended by the State of Maharashtra and to prepare<\/p>\n
    a master plan in coordination with the State of
\n    Maharashtra for starting the new D.Ed. colleges. In
\n    addition it prays for quashing and setting aside the
\n    recognitions granted after 23\/11\/2007 to new D.Ed.
\n    colleges. Whereas Writ Petition Nos.5017, 5040 and<\/p>\n
    5270 of 2008 pray for directions to the respondents to
\n    permit the petitioner Societies to admit students in<\/p>\n
    the D.Ed. course pursuant to the recognitions granted
\n    to them by respondent no.4, which implies the
\n    modification of the order passed in the instant
\n    petition on 29\/8\/2008.\n<\/p>\n
    12. The National Council for Teacher Education
\n    (the NCTE) was established in the year 1973 as an
\n    advisory body on matters pertaining to the teacher<\/p>\n
    education and was accorded statutory status by the
\n    National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (the<\/p>\n
    NCTE Act for short). The Council came into existence
\n    as a statutory body on August 8, 1995. The NCTE Act
\n    mandates the Council to achieve planned and
\n    co-ordinated development of the teacher education
\n    system throughout the country. Thus, the NCTE with<\/p>\n
    its statutory status is expected to;\n<\/p>\n
       a) determine, maintain and co-ordinate the
\n        standard in teacher education;\n<\/p>\n
       b) control proliferation of sub standard
\n        institutions;\n<\/p>\n
       c) promote and conduct innovation and
\n        research;\n<\/p>\n
       d) establish suitable system for taking<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
        education of teacher; and<\/p>\n
       e) reduce the gap between the demand and
\n        supply of teachers.\n<\/p>\n
    13. The Council is established under Section 6 of
\n    the NCTE Act and its functions are set out under
\n    Section 12 of the said Act, some of which and relevant
\n    to decide this petition, are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       a) to undertake surveys and studies relating
\n        to various aspects of teacher education and
\n        publish the result thereof;\n<\/p>\n
       b) to make recommendations to the Central and
\n        State Governments, Universities, University<\/p>\n
        Grants Commission and recognised institutions
\n        in the matter of preparation of suitable plans
\n        and programmes in the field of teacher
\n        education;\n<\/p>\n
       l) to formulate schemes for various levels of
\n         teacher education and identify recognised
\n         institutions and set up new institutions for<\/p>\n
         teacher development programmes;\n<\/p>\n
       m) to take all necessary steps to prevent
\n        commercialisation of teacher education;\n<\/p>\n
       n) to perform such other functions as may be
\n        entrusted to it by the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
    14. The Council has other committees as its bodies
\n    viz. a) The Executive Committee and b) The Regional
\n    Committees.\n<\/p>\n
    . The Executive Committee is constituted under
\n    Section 19 whereas as per Section 20 the Council shall
\n    by notification in the Official Gazette establish four
\n    Regional Committees, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
       i) the Eastern Regional Committee;\n<\/p>\n
       ii) the Western Regional Committee;\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
       iii) the Northern Regional Committee; and\n<\/p>\n
       iv) the Southern Regional Committee.\n<\/p>\n
    15. Under Section 21 of the NCTE Act the Council
\n    has the power to terminate any Regional Committee for<\/p>\n
    the reasons stated in sub section 1 of the said
\n    Section. Similarly, as per Section 30 of the NCTE
\n    Act, the Central Government has the powers to
\n    supersede the Council. Under Section 31 of the NCTE<\/p>\n
    Act, the Central Government has powers to make the
\n    Rules to carry out the provisions of the Act and under
\n    Section 32 therein the Council has the powers to make
\n    Regulations, generally to carry out the provisions of
\n    the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
       Section 29 of the NCTE Act reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       “Directions by the Central Government – (1)
\n        The Council shall, in the discharge of its
\n        functions and duties under this Act be bound<\/p>\n
        by such directions on questions of policy as
\n        the Central Government may give in writing to
\n        it from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
       (2) The decision of the Central Government as
\n        to whether a question is one of policy or not<\/p>\n
        shall be final.”\n<\/p>\n
    . Under Section 14 of the NCTE Act, the Regional
\n    Committee has the powers to pass an order granting
\n    recognition to new institutions in teachers training<\/p>\n
    or to refuse recognition to such institution for the
\n    reasons to be recorded. Every order granting or
\n    refusing recognition to an institution for a course or
\n    training in teacher education under sub section 3 of
\n    that Section shall be published in the Official<\/p>\n
    Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate
\n    action to such institutions and to the concerned
\n    examining body, the local authority or the State
\n    Government and the Central Government. Section 15 of
\n    the NCTE Act deals with permission for a new course or
\n    training by a recognised institution. The Regional
\n    Committee has the powers to grant or refuse such<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
    permission.\n<\/p>\n
    . Any person aggrieved by an order under Section
\n    14 or Section 15 of the NCTE Act may prefer an appeal
\n    to the Council within such a period as may be<\/p>\n
    prescribed, as per Section 18(1) and thus the orders
\n    granting or refusing permission under Sections 14 and
\n    15 are appealable under Section 18, of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
    16. The Government of India issued a notification
\n    dated 3\/3\/2003 under Section 20 of the NCTE Act and
\n    set up four Regional Committees and we are concerned
\n    with the Western Regional Committee at Bhopal (the
\n    Committee) which has the jurisdiction for the States<\/p>\n
    of Chhatisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh,
\n    Maharashtra and the Union Territories of Dadra, Nagar
\n    Haveli and Diu.\n<\/p>\n
    17. The petitioners have referred to the letter
\n    dated 21\/8\/2007 written by the Ministry of Human<\/p>\n
    Resources Development, Government of India to the
\n    Council and subsequent letter dated 22\/8\/2007 written
\n    by the Council to the Regional Director of the Western
\n    Regional Committee (WRC) as well as the subsequent<\/p>\n
    letter dated 22\/11\/2007 by the Government of India,
\n    Ministry of Human Resource Development to the<\/p>\n
    Chairperson of the Council giving directions under
\n    Section 29 of the NCTE Act. As per the petitioners,
\n    by the letter dated 21\/8\/2007 the Government of India
\n    issued directions to the Council under Section 29 of
\n    the NCTE Act to withhold the granting of recognition<\/p>\n
    to the institutions\/courses under the jurisdiction of
\n    WRC till a comprehensive review was undertaken or till
\n    further orders, whichever was earlier. The
\n    petitioners state that on 23\/8\/2007 the Government of
\n    India passed an order for an inquiry to be conducted<\/p>\n
    in the affairs of the WRC and a Committee consisting
\n    of Ms. Anita Kaul – Joint Secretary, Department of
\n    School Education and Literacy, Shri Virendra Kumar –
\n    Under Secretary and Shri K. Salil Kumar – Section
\n    Officer was constituted. On the basis of the report
\n    submitted by the said Committee, the Government of
\n    India issued directions vide its order dated<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                      11<\/span><\/p>\n
    22\/11\/2007, under Section 29 of the NCTE Act and
\n    advised the Council to implement the recommendations<\/p>\n
    contained in the report with the following specific
\n    directions:-\n<\/p>\n
       a) The WRC, Bhopal will process all pending
\n        applications ensuring, however, that it
\n        scrupulously takes into account the views of
\n        the State Government on the issue of sanction<\/p>\n
        or rejection of applications for recognition.
\n        In case, WRC, Bhopal differs with the views of
\n        the State Government, it shall record specific
\n        reasons in writing in such case and submit a
\n        special report to NCTE headquarters;\n<\/p>\n
       b) NCTE shall expedite the study on the demand<\/p>\n
        and supply of teachers\/teaching capacity
\n        specially for the State of Maharashtra,
\n        Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh and;\n<\/p>\n
       c) The recommendations in respect of
\n        amendments to NCTE Act and its Regulations
\n        shall be carefully examined in consultation
\n        with Ministry of Law.\n<\/p>\n
    The petitioners allege that these directions issued by<\/p>\n
    the Central Government have not been implemented by
\n    the Council and the recognitions granted by it through
\n    its Western Regional Committee are in breach of the
\n    said directions and thus in violation of Section 29 of
\n    the Act.\n<\/p>\n
    18.      It is contended by the petitioners that in the
\n    State of Maharashtra, the number of D.Ed. Colleges
\n    have mushroomed and thousands of persons who have
\n    acquired the D.Ed. qualifications have remained<\/p>\n
    unemployed for years together, on account of the fact
\n    that the demand for such primary school teachers is
\n    much less than the candidates who pass out from these
\n    Colleges. It has been urged before us that the
\n    Council or the Committee has not undertaken the demand\n<\/p>\n
    – supply study and WRC has been entertaining the
\n    applications for granting recognition to the new D.Ed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                      12<\/span><\/p>\n
    Colleges which, as per the petitioners, has given rise
\n    to the commercialisation in education. The<\/p>\n
    petitioners have also emphasised that the State
\n    Government, right from the year 2005 onwards, has been
\n    consistently writing to the Council as well as the WRC<\/p>\n
    not to grant any further recognition to the D.Ed.
\n    Colleges on the ground that the existing D.Ed.
\n    Colleges produce more than the required trained
\n    teachers for the primary schools and in fact thousands<\/p>\n
    of such D.Ed. qualified persons have remained
\n    unemployed during the last few years. The petitioners
\n    contend that the WRC has failed to take into account
\n    these ground realities and has been granting
\n    recognitions to new D.Ed. Colleges despite of<\/p>\n
    opposition by the State Government and such colleges
\n    have already reached a point of saturation.\n<\/p>\n
    . The main thrust of the petitioners’ arguments
\n    is based on the order passed by the Government of
\n    India on 22\/11\/2007 issuing directions under Section<\/p>\n
    29 of the NCTE Act to the Council in respect of policy
\n    decisions and the petitioners contend that the said
\n    order does not permit the Council or the WRC to grant
\n    recognition to new D.Ed. Colleges unless the WRC has<\/p>\n
    scrupulously taken into account the view of the State
\n    Government and if the WRC differs with the view of the<\/p>\n
    State Government it shall record specific reasons in
\n    writing in such cases and submit a special report to
\n    the Council. They further state that the pending
\n    applications could not have been considered unless the
\n    Council had undertaken the status survey of demand and<\/p>\n
    supply of teachers\/teaching capacity in the State of
\n    Maharashtra and the directions given by the said order
\n    dated 22\/11\/2007 have been violated by the Council and
\n    more particularly the WRC. It is further submitted
\n    that the WRC could not have decided all these<\/p>\n
    applications and it was duty bound to merely submit a
\n    special report to the Council.\n<\/p>\n
    19. Mr. C.S. Kaptan, the learned counsel for the
\n    respondent nos.3 and 4 has raised a preliminary
\n    objection by referring to the scheme of Section 18 of
\n    the NCTE Act which provides for appeals and submitted<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                      13<\/span><\/p>\n
    that the petition is not maintainable when the
\n    statutory remedy of appeal has been provided under the<\/p>\n
    Act to any person aggrieved by an order made under
\n    Section 14 or 15 of the said Act. This preliminary
\n    objection has also been supported by the learned<\/p>\n
    counsel appearing for the private respondents – the
\n    institutions which have received the recognition
\n    orders passed by the respondent no.4 and the
\n    respondent no.5 is an association representing all the<\/p>\n
    institutions which have received the recognition
\n    orders from the respondent no.4 and the said orders
\n    are the subject matter of scrutiny in this petition.
\n    However, when we called upon Mr.Kaptan to find out
\n    whether the Council is ready to re-consider the<\/p>\n
    impugned orders of granting recognition by the WRC
\n    under its appellate powers under Section 18 of the<\/p>\n
    NCTE Act, by treating this petition as an appeal, Mr.
\n    Kaptan submitted that he has no such instructions and,
\n    therefore, he would not be able to make any statement.
\n    Whereas the learned counsel for the private<\/p>\n
    respondents opposed this suggestion on the grounds
\n    that the Committee has granted them recognition by
\n    following the regulations framed under Section 32 of
\n    the NCTE Act and applicable at the relevant time.\n<\/p>\n
    They further submitted that the State Government
\n    either failed to give any opinion on their<\/p>\n
    applications submitted to WRC or furnished an opinion
\n    opposing the applications without giving any reasons
\n    and, therefore, the Committee was justified in
\n    considering all these applications as per the decision
\n    taken by it in its 100th meeting held on 17\/12\/2007 to<\/p>\n
    19\/12\/2007.\n<\/p>\n
    . In the said meeting the letter dated
\n    23\/11\/2007 written by the Council to the WRC was
\n    considered and the Committee laid down the following<\/p>\n
    norms to consider the pending applications for
\n    recognition:-\n<\/p>\n
       (a) If there is any positive recommendation
\n        from the State Government, recognition\/
\n        permission will be granted as per the NCTE
\n        Regulations;\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                       14<\/span><\/p>\n
       (b) If the Government has not communicated any<\/p>\n
        positive or negative remarks within 60 days
\n        from the issuance of the letter from the WRC
\n        to the concerned State Government, cases will<\/p>\n
        be considered on merit basis;\n<\/p>\n
       (c) In case of the negative recommendation
\n        without any justification, cases will be<\/p>\n
        considered on merit basis;\n<\/p>\n
       (d) If the State Government’s negative
\n        recommendations are there in respect of a
\n        particular institution with justification and<\/p>\n
        in the opinion of the Committee the
\n        justification is genuine, the cases will be<\/p>\n
        rejected. The intimation of such cases will
\n        be sent to the NCTE headquarters.\n<\/p>\n
       (e) The WRC differs with the negative reasons\/<\/p>\n
        opinion of the State Government, cases will be
\n        forwarded to the NCTE headquarters.\n<\/p>\n
    20. Mr. Kaptan pointed out that out of 291
\n    impugned recognitions granted by the WRC, in 159 cases<\/p>\n
    no recommendations were received from the State
\n    Government whereas in the remaining 132 cases the
\n    recommendation as received from the State Government
\n    was only “No” and there was no justification provided
\n    in opposing these 132 cases. Mr.Kaptan, therefore,<\/p>\n
    relied upon clause (c) above in the decision taken by
\n    the WRC and submitted that it rightly proceeded to
\n    decide the pending applications and granted
\n    recognition in favour of 291 institutions and no fault
\n    could be found with the said decision of the WRC. In<\/p>\n
    132 cases where recommendation was in the negative but
\n    without any justification by the State Government,
\n    these cases have been considered on merit by the WRC
\n    and allowed whereas in the remaining 159 cases the
\n    State Government did not communicate any positive or
\n    negative remarks within the stipulated period of 60
\n    days and, therefore, the WRC proceeded to consider<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                       15<\/span><\/p>\n
    these cases on merits as per clause (b) above. Mr.
\n    Kaptan urged before us that it was not necessary for<\/p>\n
    the WRC to submit all the pending applications to the
\n    Council under clause (d) or (e) of the above stated
\n    norms framed by it.\n<\/p>\n
    21. The learned counsel for the private
\n    respondents urged before us that the Committee is
\n    required to decide the applications as per the<\/p>\n
    regulations applicable for the relevant year and if
\n    the State Government failed to submit its
\n    recommendation within the stipulated period or
\n    submitted negative remarks without any justification,
\n    the Committee was justified in considering the<\/p>\n
    applications on merits, namely the compliance made of
\n    the requirements under clause 7 of the Regulations.\n<\/p>\n
    It was further contended that the letter dated
\n    23\/11\/2007 written by the Council to the Committee
\n    cannot be termed as directions under Section 29 of the
\n    NCTE Act by the Central Government. In support of<\/p>\n
    this contention, it was submitted before us that the
\n    directions, if any, were not in the name of the
\n    President of India and they were not authenticated by
\n    any authorised officer of the Government of India and,<\/p>\n
    therefore, they cannot be called as directions within
\n    the meaning of Section 29 of the NCTE Act. The norms<\/p>\n
    finalised by the WRC in its 100th meeting to consider
\n    the pending applications were rightly formulated on
\n    the basis of the regulations applicable for the
\n    relevant year and, therefore, no fault could be found
\n    with the decision of the WRC in allowing 291<\/p>\n
    applications for recognition. Mr. Kaptan, the
\n    learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 as well
\n    as the learned counsel for the private respondents
\n    have strongly relied upon the decision of the Supreme
\n    Court in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Sanstha<\/p>\n
    Mahavidyalaya (Supra). They also submitted that if
\n    the State Government was aggrieved by the recognitions
\n    granted, it was necessary for it to file an appeal
\n    under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, but the State has
\n    not done so and hence its justification to oppose the
\n    opening of new D.Ed. Colleges does not deserve to be
\n    taken into consideration.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                      16<\/span><\/p>\n
    22. Mr. Ghughe, the learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
    the respondent nos. 13 to 25 submitted that the
\n    petitioners have no locus standi to file this petition
\n    in public interest and the petition does not, in fact,<\/p>\n
    involve any public interest. He alleged that the
\n    petitioners are trying to canvass their personal
\n    vested interests and they do not have any locus standi
\n    to challenge the actions of the Council or its<\/p>\n
    Committee. He has relied upon the following decisions
\n    of the Supreme Court, and submitted that the petition
\n    is required to be dismissed as not maintainable:-\n<\/p>\n
       (1) Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. M.A. Rasheed
\n           and ors. [(2004) 4 SCC 460]<\/p>\n
       (2) R & M Trust Vs. Koramangala Residents
\n           Vigilance Group & ors. [(2005) 3 SCC 91]<\/p>\n
       (3) T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (98) Vs.
\n           Union of India & ors. [(2006) 5 SCC 28]<\/p>\n
    . Mr. Khapre, the learned counsel appearing for
\n    the respondent no.5 association submitted that the<\/p>\n
    letter dated 22\/8\/2007 cannot be termed as legal
\n    directions or directions within the meaning of Section
\n    29 of the NCTE Act. He further submitted that the
\n    Council cannot have the powers to decide the
\n    application for recognition and if it is allowed to do<\/p>\n
    so, the right to appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE
\n    Act is taken away. In this regard, he placed reliance
\n    on the decision in the case of Kamla Devi vs. Khushal
\n    Kanwar and<\/a> another [AIR 2007 SC 663]. He further
\n    submitted that as long as there are students seeking<\/p>\n
    admissions to the D.Ed. Colleges newly recognised,
\n    the opposition of the State Government to such
\n    colleges is irrelevant and the Council or Committee is
\n    not obliged to consider the same.\n<\/p>\n
    . As per Mr. Gordey, the learned counsel
\n    appearing for the respondent no. 38 there is no<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                       17<\/span><\/p>\n
    provision under the Regulations to reject the
\n    application for recognition on the grounds that there<\/p>\n
    was no requirement to start D.Ed. Colleges as per the
\n    opinion of the State Government. He referred to the
\n    Scheme 14 of the NCTE Act and submitted that any<\/p>\n
    opinion of the State has no relevance in considering
\n    the recognition by the WRC and so long as the
\n    requirements of the said Section as well as the
\n    Regulations framed by the Council under Section 32 of<\/p>\n
    the said Act are satisfied, the applications are
\n    required to be allowed despite the opposition by the
\n    State Government. In this regard, he placed reliance
\n    on the decision in the case of State of Orissa and
\n    ors. vs. Prasana Kumar Sahoo<\/a> [AIR 2007 SC 2588].\n<\/p>\n
    23. Mr. Mirza, the learned counsel appearing for
\n    the respondent nos.6,7, 32, 34, 36 and 37 submitted
\n    that he represents the minority institutions and as
\n    per him, Article 30 of the Constitution of India has<\/p>\n
    granted the right to all such institutions to
\n    establish and run educational institutions of their
\n    choice and the applications submitted by such
\n    institutions cannot be rejected either by the WRC or<\/p>\n
    the Council. He has also relied upon Article 77 of
\n    the Constitution as well as Section 10 of the National<\/p>\n
    Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act,
\n    2004 (“the Minority Institutions Act” for short). As
\n    Mr.Mirza, the rights of the minority institutions to
\n    open and run educational institutions cannot be
\n    restricted by any opinion of the State Government<\/p>\n
    opposing to grant recognitions and in any case the
\n    “need” to open D.Ed. Colleges in the State of
\n    Maharashtra is irrelevant so long there are minority
\n    students seeking admissions in such colleges.\n<\/p>\n
    24. At the outset, it requires to be noted that
\n    the minority institutions, which have been granted
\n    recognition to start a new D.Ed. College out of the
\n    291 impugned recognitions in the instant petition, had
\n    submitted applications for recognition under Section
\n    14 of the NCTE Act and the Regulations framed
\n    thereunder and as applicable for the relevant year in<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                      18<\/span><\/p>\n
    which the application was submitted. We are not
\n    dealing with any applications submitted by such<\/p>\n
    institutions either under Section 10 or Section 10A of
\n    the Minority Institutions Act. As per Section 10 of
\n    the Minority Institutions Act, any person who desires<\/p>\n
    to establish a Minority Educational Institution may
\n    apply to the Competent Authority for grant of No
\n    Objection Certificate for the said purpose and the
\n    Competent Authority shall on perusal of the documents,<\/p>\n
    affidavits or other evidence, if any, and after giving
\n    an opportunity of being heard to the applicant, decide
\n    every application so filed as expeditiously as
\n    possible and grant or reject the application, as the
\n    case may be. Subsection (3) of Section 10 provides<\/p>\n
    for a deeming provision for grant of No Objection
\n    Certificate to the applicant-society and as per<\/p>\n
    Subsection (4) of Section 10, the applicant shall be
\n    entitled to commence and proceed with the
\n    establishment of the Minority Educational Institution
\n    on grant of No Objection Certificate, in accordance<\/p>\n
    with the Rules and Regulations. Whereas Section 10A
\n    of the Minority Institutions Act provides for seeking
\n    affiliation by such institution to any University of
\n    its choice subject to such affiliation being<\/p>\n
    permissible under the Act under which the said
\n    University is established. It is not the case of any<\/p>\n
    of the minority institutions which are before us that
\n    any one of them had submitted an application seeking
\n    No Objection Certificate under Section 10 or
\n    affiliation under Section 10A of the Minority
\n    Institutions Act and, therefore, those institutions<\/p>\n
    cannot rely upon the said provisions. In the instant
\n    petition, we are not dealing with the right or the
\n    protections available to the Minority Educational
\n    Institutions under the Constitution of India. The
\n    recognitions granted by the Council through its<\/p>\n
    Committee to 291 institutions are a subject matter of
\n    scrutiny in the instant petition and as per the
\n    petitioners, the Committee was not justified in
\n    completely overlooking the factor of need to establish
\n    new D.Ed. Colleges in the State of Maharashtra and
\n    that the Committee has blindly and without application
\n    of mind granted such recognitions. The petitioners<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                       19<\/span><\/p>\n
    also claim that the Council through its Committee
\n    could not have acted in breach of the specific<\/p>\n
    directions issued by the Central Government and as
\n    reflected in the communication dated 22\/11\/2007, in
\n    the matter of granting recognition to the new D.Ed.\n<\/p>\n
    Colleges in the State of Maharashtra. Article 30(1)
\n    of the Constitution states that all minorities,
\n    whether based on religion or language, shall have the
\n    right to establish and administer educational<\/p>\n
    institutions of their choice. However, the issue of
\n    granting recognition to any such Minority Educational
\n    Institution like a college or any other institution of
\n    higher education is undoubtedly governed by the
\n    provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994,<\/p>\n
    the Maharashtra Universities of Health Sciences Act,
\n    1998, the All India Council For Technical Education<\/p>\n
    Act, 1987 and\/or All India Medical Council Act, 1956
\n    as the case may be. Similarly, granting recognition
\n    to a new D.Ed. College, even though established by a
\n    Minority Educational Institution, is covered under<\/p>\n
    Section 14 of the NCTE Act and, therefore, such
\n    institutions cannot claim that the issue of granting
\n    recognition is an absolute right. Granting of
\n    recognition to such Minority Educational Institutions<\/p>\n
    is covered by their respective statutory provisions
\n    and in the instant case by the NCTE Act and,<\/p>\n
    therefore, it requires to be scrutinised strictly
\n    under the provisions of the Act. Hence, we do not
\n    agree with Mr. Mirza that the recognitions which are
\n    granted to open new D.Ed. Colleges by the Minority
\n    Educational Institutions cannot be scrutinised by us<\/p>\n
    in the instant petition.\n<\/p>\n
    25. Coming to the issue of locus of the
\n    petitioners to file this petition in public interest
\n    is concerned, we have noted that the petitioners<\/p>\n
    themselves are the teachers and they are seeking to
\n    bring to the notice of this court the gross
\n    illegalities in granting recognitions to new D.Ed.
\n    Colleges by the Council through its Committee in the
\n    State of Maharashtra and without considering the need
\n    based assessment to start such colleges. If the
\n    Council, which is a statutory body, is alleged to have<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                      20<\/span><\/p>\n
    failed in complying with the directions of the Central
\n    Government and thus acted in breach of the provisions<\/p>\n
    of Section 29 of the NCTE Act, it becomes a matter of
\n    public law to be decided in public interest. The
\n    petitioners have made attempts to bring to the notice<\/p>\n
    of this court that the Council through its Committee
\n    has acted in breach of the directions issued by the
\n    Central Government under Section 29 of the NCTE Act in
\n    granting recognitions to new D.Ed. Colleges and that<\/p>\n
    too when such colleges are being opposed by the State
\n    Government consistently during the last few years on
\n    the ground that there is already a massive
\n    unemployment amongst those who have obtained the D.Ed.
\n    qualification. We are satisfied that the petitioners<\/p>\n
    are not espousing their personal cause or the cause of
\n    any private institute engaged in running a D.Ed.\n<\/p>\n
    College and there are no malafides which could be
\n    attributed to them in seeking to challenge the actions
\n    of the Council and its Committee in granting
\n    recognitions to new D.Ed. Colleges. The petitioners<\/p>\n
    are not attempting to vindicate any personal interest
\n    or gain or publicity or for that matter any private
\n    interest in seeking to challenge the decision of the
\n    Committee to grant recognitions to new D.Ed. Colleges<\/p>\n
    despite the State Government opposing any further new
\n    D.Ed. Colleges. In short, we are convinced that the<\/p>\n
    petition is pro bono publico, that is it has been
\n    genuinely filed in public interest and it seeks to
\n    redress a genuine public wrong\/injury and is not
\n    founded on personal vendetta or to seek publicity.
\n    We, therefore, reject the contentions that the<\/p>\n
    petitioners do not have a locus to file the instant
\n    petition and that it cannot be termed as a petition in
\n    public interest. None of the decisions relied upon by
\n    Mr.Ghuge are applicable to hold that the petition is
\n    required to be rejected on the preliminary points<\/p>\n
    advanced by him.\n<\/p>\n
    26. We must also deal with the issue of
\n    maintainability raised by Mr.Kaptan, the learned
\n    counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4. As per him when a
\n    statutory remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the
\n    NCTE Act is available to any aggrieved person<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                      21<\/span><\/p>\n
    including the petitioners, a writ petition under
\n    Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable<\/p>\n
    and this Court should not entertain the writ petition
\n    and instead relegate the petitioners to the remedy of
\n    appeal before the Council. We make it clear that we<\/p>\n
    are not deciding the merit of the order of granting
\n    recognition to the new D.Ed. colleges and we are
\n    concerned only with the issue as to whether the said
\n    recognitions are in breach of the directions issued by<\/p>\n
    the Central Government under Section 29 of the NCTE
\n    Act and vide its order dated 23\/11\/2007. The said
\n    directions were issued to the Council and not to the
\n    Committee. The impugned recognitions have been
\n    granted by the Committee acting as a subordinate body<\/p>\n
    of the Council and we are required to consider whether
\n    the Council has failed to implement the directions<\/p>\n
    issued by the Central Government when the said
\n    directions are binding on the Council. Thus when the
\n    challenge raised in the petition is against the
\n    omissions of the Council or its failure to implement<\/p>\n
    the policy decisions \/ directions of the Central
\n    Government, the Council cannot decide the appeals and,
\n    therefore, we are not impressed by the submissions of
\n    Mr.Kaptan that the petitioners should be relegated to<\/p>\n
    the remedy of appeal before the Council.\n<\/p>\n
    . We also note at this stage that the order
\n    passed by the Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition
\n    Nos.3801 and 3802 of 2008 on 18\/6\/2008 does not detain
\n    us from proceeding to decide this petition on merits.\n<\/p>\n
    27. Two main issues arise for our considerations
\n    in this petition, namely,<\/p>\n
       (a) whether the Council through its Committee,
\n        while deciding the pending applications under<\/p>\n
        Sections 14 and 15 of the NCTE Act, is
\n        required to consider the need to establish new
\n        D.Ed. Colleges on the basis of the
\n        requirements of primary school teachers in the
\n        respective States in the near future? and,<\/p>\n
       (b) whether the impugned recognitions granted<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                      22<\/span><\/p>\n
        to 291 new D.Ed. Colleges are in breach of
\n        the directions issued by the Central<\/p>\n
        Government under Section 29 of the NCTE Act,
\n        vide its order dated 23\/11\/2007.\n<\/p>\n
    28. The preamble of the NCTE Act states that it is
\n    an Act to provide for the establishment of a National
\n    Council for Teacher education with a view to achieving
\n    planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher<\/p>\n
    education system throughout the country, the
\n    regulation and proper maintenance of norms and
\n    standards in the teacher education system and for
\n    matters connected therewith. “Teacher education”
\n    means programmes of education, research or training of<\/p>\n
    persons for equipping them to teach at pre-primary,
\n    primary, secondary and higher secondary stages in<\/p>\n
    schools, and includes non-formal education, Part-time
\n    education, adult education and correspondence
\n    education. “Teacher education qualification” means a
\n    degree, diploma or certificate in teacher education<\/p>\n
    awarded by a University or examining body in
\n    accordance with the provisions of the NCTE Act.
\n    “Examination body” means a University, agency or
\n    authority to which an institution is affiliated for<\/p>\n
    conducting examinations in teacher education
\n    qualifications, and “Institution” means an institution<\/p>\n
    which offers courses or training in teacher education.
\n    Section 3 of the NCTE Act provides for establishment
\n    of the National Council for Teacher Education and its
\n    functions are laid down under Section 12 of the said
\n    Act. It shall be the duty of the Council to take all<\/p>\n
    such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned
\n    and co-ordinated development of teacher education and
\n    for the determination and maintenance of standards for
\n    teacher education and for the purposes of performing
\n    its functions under the NCTE Act, the Council may<\/p>\n
    undertake surveys and studies relating to various
\n    aspects of teacher education and publish the result
\n    thereof; make recommendations to the Central and
\n    State Governments, Universities, University Grants
\n    Commission and recognised institutions in the matter
\n    of preparation of suitable plans and programmes in the
\n    field of teacher education; co-ordinate and monitor<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                      23<\/span><\/p>\n
    teacher education and its development in the country;
\n    formulate schemes for various leaves of teacher<\/p>\n
    education and identify recognised institutions and set
\n    up new institutions for teacher development
\n    programmes; and to take all necessary steps to<\/p>\n
    prevent commercialisation of teacher education.
\n    Granting of recognition to institutions offering
\n    courses or training in teacher education and
\n    permission for a new course or training by recognised<\/p>\n
    institution are the functions which the NCTE Act has
\n    vested with the Regional Committee established under
\n    Section 20 of the said Act, but such Committee
\n    discharges the said functions on behalf of the Council
\n    and as a part of the Council. The examining body in<\/p>\n
    respect of the D.Ed. programmes in the State of
\n    Maharashtra is the Maharashtra State Council for<\/p>\n
    Educational Research and Training and it is required
\n    to grant affiliation where recognition has been
\n    granted under Section 14 of the NCTE Act by the
\n    Council through its Committee and as per Section 16 of<\/p>\n
    the said Act, the said examining body has no powers to
\n    grant affiliation unless the institution concerned has
\n    obtained recognition from the Committee concerned
\n    under Section 14 or permission under Section 15 of the<\/p>\n
    NCTE Act.\n<\/p>\n
    29. Any institution proposing to open a new D.Ed.
\n    college cannot be equated or compared with an
\n    institution proposing to open a new college for higher
\n    education i.e. graduate or post-graduate courses in
\n    Arts, Commerce and Science etc. or on the lines of<\/p>\n
    the professional colleges like Health Sciences,
\n    Engineering and Technology etc. Even for these
\n    colleges of higher education to be established under
\n    the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 or the
\n    Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998,<\/p>\n
    the All India Council for Technical Education Act 1987
\n    or the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the concept
\n    of need plays a prominent role. Under Section 82 of
\n    the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, the University
\n    is required to prepare a perspective plan and get the
\n    same approved by the State Council for Higher
\n    Education, for educational development for the<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                       24<\/span><\/p>\n
    location of colleges and institutions of higher
\n    learning in a manner ensuring equitable distribution<\/p>\n
    of facilities for Higher Education having due regard,
\n    in particular, to the needs of unserved and
\n    under-developed areas within the jurisdiction of the<\/p>\n
    university and such a plan is required to be updated
\n    every year. No application for opening a new college
\n    or institution of higher learning, which is not in
\n    conformity with such plan, shall be considered by the<\/p>\n
    university. Similarly, under Section 64 of the
\n    Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998,
\n    the University shall prepare a perspective plan for
\n    educational development for the location of
\n    institutions of higher learning in a manner ensuring<\/p>\n
    equitable distribution of facilities of Health
\n    Sciences Education having due regard, in particular,<\/p>\n
    to the needs of unserved and under developed areas
\n    within the jurisdiction of the University. Such plan
\n    shall be updated every five years. No application for
\n    opening a new University or Institution of higher<\/p>\n
    learning which is not in conformity with such plan
\n    shall be considered by the University. On the other
\n    hand, the D.Ed. Colleges cannot be termed as
\n    institutions of higher learning in the strict sense<\/p>\n
    and these colleges are meant only to prepare primary
\n    school teachers and, therefore, they are called as<\/p>\n
    teacher education institutes. When we think of
\n    teacher education programme, obviously, the
\n    requirements of such teachers, who are normally called
\n    as trained teacher, comes up for consideration at the
\n    first instance. Requirement of teachers for the<\/p>\n
    future varies from State to State as the population
\n    varies. A college exclusively catering to prepare
\n    primary school teachers has to be founded on the
\n    strength of teachers required in the primary schools
\n    from time to time and more particularly keeping in<\/p>\n
    mind that the Constitution of India has guaranteed
\n    education as a fundamental right to a child upto the
\n    age of 14 years. It cannot be accepted that the
\n    establishment of new D.Ed. colleges has nothing to do
\n    with the requirements of trained primary teachers in
\n    the concerned State. It may not be a sole criteria
\n    but certainly it is a relevant requirement, though not<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                       25<\/span><\/p>\n
    incorporated under Section 14 of the NCTE Act
\n    specifically, that has to be taken into consideration<\/p>\n
    by the Council. The purpose for which the Council has
\n    been established by the NCTE Act itself makes it clear
\n    that the teacher education institutions are required<\/p>\n
    to be need based which implies that while granting
\n    recognitions\/permissions the requirement of teachers
\n    either in the pre-primary schools, primary schools,
\n    secondary schools or higher secondary schools are<\/p>\n
    required to be taken into consideration by the Council
\n    while granting such applications.\n<\/p>\n
    30. In the instant petition we are not dealing
\n    with a case of granting no objection or refusing to<\/p>\n
    grant affiliation by the University or the Examining
\n    Body as was the issue in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar<\/p>\n
    Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (Supra). In the said
\n    case recognitions to start new B.Ed. colleges were
\n    granted and thereafter the respective Universities and
\n    the Maharshtra State Government had refused to grant<\/p>\n
    affiliation to such B.Ed. colleges. It was in that
\n    context the Supreme Court held that the State
\n    Government could not have passed the order refusing
\n    permission on the ground of the so called “policy” for<\/p>\n
    not allowing new B.Ed. Colleges to be opened. The
\n    issues in this petition and as framed by us in para 25<\/p>\n
    for considerations are different as compared to the
\n    issues that fell for consideration in the case of Sant
\n    Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya. When the
\n    Council established under the NCTE Act had granted
\n    recognitions under the said Act, it was not<\/p>\n
    permissible for the State Government to invoke its
\n    power under Sections 82 and 83 of the Maharashtra
\n    Universities Act and refuse affiliation on the ground
\n    that no new B.Ed. Colleges were required to be
\n    opened. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the<\/p>\n
    provisions of Sections 82 and 83 would not apply to an
\n    institution covered by the NCTE Act. The Supreme
\n    Court further stated that as per the scheme of the
\n    NCTE Act, once recognition has been granted by the
\n    Council under Section 14 of the NCTE Act, every
\n    University\/Examining Body is obliged to grant
\n    affiliation to such institutions and Sections 82 and<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                       26<\/span><\/p>\n
    83 of the Universities Act do not apply to such cases.
\n    In the case of Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak<\/p>\n
    Mahasangh Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. [AIR<\/p>\n
    1987 SC 135], the Supreme Court upheld the policy<\/p>\n
    decision of the State Government not to allow new
\n    D.Ed. colleges to be opened considering the fact that
\n    if permission would be granted, there would be large
\n    scale unemployment and such a policy decision could<\/p>\n
    not be said to be arbitrary or otherwise unreasonable.
\n    Of course, at the relevant time the power to grant or
\n    refuse permission to open new D.Ed. colleges was with
\n    the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
    31. Clause 7(3) of the National Council for
\n    Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure)<\/p>\n
    Regulations, 2005 reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       “(3) On receipt of the communication, the
\n        State Government\/UT Administration concerned<\/p>\n
        shall furnish its recommendations on the
\n        applications to the office of the Regional
\n        Committee concerned of the National Council
\n        for Teacher Education within 60 days from<\/p>\n
        receipt. If the recommendation is negative,
\n        the State Government\/UT Administration shall<\/p>\n
        provide detailed reasons\/grounds thereof,
\n        which could be taken into consideration by the
\n        Regional Committee concerned while deciding
\n        the application. If no communication is
\n        received from the State Government\/UT<\/p>\n
        Administration within the stipulated 60 days,
\n        it shall be presumed that the State
\n        Government\/UT Administration concerned has no
\n        recommendation to make.”\n<\/p>\n
    . The same Regulations came to be amended \/
\n    revised in the form of National Council for Teacher
\n    Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure)
\n    Regulations, 2007. Clause 7(3) of the 2007
\n    Regulations reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       “(3) On receipt of the communication, the<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                     27<\/span><\/p>\n
        State Government\/UT Administration concerned
\n        shall furnish its recommendations on the<\/p>\n
        applications to the office of the Regional
\n        Committee concerned of the National Council
\n        for Teacher Education within 60 days from<\/p>\n
        receipt. If the recommendation is negative,
\n        the State Government\/UT Administration shall
\n        provide detailed reasons\/grounds thereof with
\n        necessary statistics, which shall be taken<\/p>\n
        into consideration by the Regional Committee
\n        concerned while deciding the application. If
\n        no communication is received from the State
\n        Government\/UT Administration within the<\/p>\n
        stipulated 60 days, it shall be presumed that
\n        the State Government\/UT Administration<\/p>\n
        concerned has no recommendation to make.”
\n        (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
    . The change brought in while revising Clause<\/p>\n
    7(3) of the Regulations of 2005, the word “with
\n    necessary statistics” has been added in Clause 7(3) of
\n    the Regulations of 2007. These Regulations have been
\n    framed under Section 32 of the NCTE Act by the Council<\/p>\n
    and it is, therefore, clear that the Council deems it
\n    necessary to invite recommendations of the State<\/p>\n
    Government in respect of the applications submitted
\n    under Section 14 or 15 of the NCTE Act by the
\n    educational institutions and if the recommendation is
\n    negative, the State Government is required to provide
\n    detailed reasons\/grounds thereof and with necessary<\/p>\n
    statistics, which shall be taken into consideration by
\n    the WRC while deciding such applications. Thus, the
\n    opinion of the State Government on the basis of
\n    requirements of primary school teachers is sought by
\n    the Council and it does take into consideration such<\/p>\n
    opinion while deciding the applications filed under
\n    Section 14 or 15 of the NCTE Act. Therefore, it
\n    cannot be said that the opinion of the State
\n    Government on the need based requirement of new D.Ed.
\n    Colleges is totally irrelevant. On the contrary, as
\n    per the Regulations            themselves, such
\n    opinion\/recommendation is one of the relevant<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                      28<\/span><\/p>\n
    considerations while deciding the applications for
\n    recognition\/permission.\n<\/p>\n
    32. The Council claims that in its meeting held on
\n    1\/7\/200 Clause 5(5) of the Regulations 2007 came to be<\/p>\n
    modified as under only for grant of recognition \/
\n    permission for starting various teacher training
\n    courses for the current academic session i.e.
\n    2008-2009:\n<\/p>\n
       “All complete applications pending with the
\n        Regional Committees shall be processed for the
\n        current academic session i.e. 200-2009 in
\n        accordance with the provisions of relevant<\/p>\n
        Regulations and maintaining the chronological
\n        sequence and final decision, either<\/p>\n
        recognition granted or refused, shall be
\n        communicated by 31st August, 2008.”\n<\/p>\n
    . Based on the above amendment it was admitted<\/p>\n
    on behalf of the respondents that the Regulations of
\n    2007 have not been applied to the impugned
\n    recognitions and as per them, Regulations of 2005 were
\n    made applicable in that regard. If that be so, it is<\/p>\n
    evident that the State Government was not required to
\n    provide the necessary statistics while furnishing its<\/p>\n
    recommendations in the negative as is required under
\n    Clause 7(3) of the Regulations of 2007, though we
\n    will, in the later part of this judgment, refer to the
\n    statistics furnished by the State Government in its
\n    various letters as well as affidavits filed in this<\/p>\n
    petition which, in our opinion, is very relevant for
\n    deciding the applications for recommendation \/
\n    permission by the Statement Government.\n<\/p>\n
    33. In support of our opinion that the<\/p>\n
    recommendation of the State Government while
\n    processing an application either under Section 14 or
\n    Section 15 of the NCTE Act, the opinion of the State
\n    Government is relevant and it requires due
\n    consideration by the Council through its Committee, we
\n    rely upon the following observations made in the
\n    report submitted by the Kaul Committee on 1\/10\/2007 to<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                            29<\/span><\/p>\n
    the Government of India:\n<\/p>\n
       “1.7. Several representations have been
\n        received from States expressing concern and
\n        dissatisfaction about the functioning of the<\/p>\n
        Western Regional Committee (WRC), Bhopal.
\n        Representations have also been received that
\n        institutions do not meet the prescribed
\n        standards and norms, but have nonetheless been<\/p>\n
        granted recognition. Complaints have also
\n        been received on the mushrooming growth of
\n        institutions in relation to the requirement of
\n        teachers due to waiver of the condition of
\n        obtaining “No Objection Certificate” from the<\/p>\n
        State Governments.\n<\/p>\n
       1.8<\/p>\n
               The Chairman, WRC, Bhopal, vide letter
\n        dated 18\/7\/2007, expressed concern about the
\n        superfluity of B.Ed.\/D.Ed. institutions in
\n        the States falling under the jurisdiction of<\/p>\n
        WRC, Bhopal. In cognizance of the concern
\n        expressed by Chairman, WRC, the Department of
\n        School Education and Literacy, Ministry of
\n        Human Resource Development issued directions<\/p>\n
        under Section 29 of the NCTE Act for a
\n        comprehensive review of the WRC, Bhopal,<\/p>\n
        further directing that till such time as the
\n        review was completed, the WRC, Bhopal, should
\n        not grant further recognitions of institutions
\n        \/ courses \/ additional intake<\/p>\n
       2.3     Details of the increase in respect of
\n         D.Ed. Courses in the State of Maharashtra
\n        from 31\/3\/2005 to 31\/3\/2007<\/p>\n
        —————————————-\n<\/p>\n
          Date      Courses          Approved\n          as on recognised            intake\n<\/pre>\n
        —————————————-\n<\/p>\n
         31\/3\/2005       234         15903\n\n\n\n\n                                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>\n                                           30<\/span>\n\n      31\/3\/2006         546         26553\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n      31\/3\/2007         794         38953\n\n<\/pre>\n
      —————————————-\n<\/p>\n
     8.4      … It is important for WRC to
\n      undertake a comprehensive state-wise location<\/p>\n
      mapping of Teacher Education institutions.
\n      The mapping exercise should cover both private
\n      and government institutions imparting
\n      professional training to teachers at all
\n      levels of school education through collection<\/p>\n
      of data relating to number of students,
\n      schools (govt. as well as private)<\/p>\n
      district-wise and state-wise so as to assess
\n      the demand and supply of teachers as also to
\n      provide ample scope of practical training of
\n      teachers in the vicinity of the institution<\/p>\n
      seeking recognition. This exercise should
\n      result in the creating of a dynamic
\n      information base on the teacher education
\n      system, which should be available online in<\/p>\n
      the public domain. Based on this exercise,
\n      WRC should maintain a permanent MIS on teacher<\/p>\n
      education in the country through regular
\n      updating of information. This is critical for<\/p>\n
      regular assessment of the quality of teacher<\/p>\n
      education and rationalizing distribution of<\/p>\n
      institutions in a need based manner.”<\/p>\n
\n\n      (Emphasis supplied)\n\n\n\n\n\n     8.5     The NCTE should review its\n      Regulations, which        have rendered\n      recommendations \/ comments of State\n<\/pre>\n
      Governments \/ UTs on applications seeking
\n      recognition virtually redundant. The present
\n      regulations correctly stipulate that<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                    31<\/span><\/p>\n
     recommendations \/ comments of the State
\n     Government should be received within 60 days<\/p>\n
     failing which it will be presumed that the
\n     State Government \/ UT has no recommendation to
\n     make. However, the present regulation also<\/p>\n
     stipulates that `if the recommendation is
\n     negative, the State Government \/ UT
\n     administration shall provide detailed reasons
\n     \/ grounds thereof, which could be taken into<\/p>\n
     consideration by the Regional Committee
\n     concerned while deciding the application’.
\n     There is a problem with the use of the word
\n     `could’ in the said regulation, especially in
\n     the absence of any stipulation for the<\/p>\n
     Regional Committees to give `detailed reasons
\n     \/ grounds’ for overlooking \/ ignoring the<\/p>\n
     comments of the State Governments. For all<\/p>\n
     practical purposes, this regulation has<\/p>\n
     resulted in virtually dispensing with the<\/p>\n
     system of consultation with State Governments<\/p>\n
     \/ UT Administrations in the matter of Teacher<\/p>\n
     Education, and has     caused considerable<\/p>\n
     resentment against the     functioning of<\/p>\n
     NCTE-Regional Committees.          The approach,<\/p>\n
     clearly one-sided, does not take congnizance<\/p>\n
     of the overall State requirements for teacher<\/p>\n
     education. It is therefore recommended that<\/p>\n
     NCTE review this provision to ensure that the<\/p>\n
     recommendations of the State Governments \/ UT<\/p>\n
     administrations concerned are given full and<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                     32<\/span><\/p>\n
      careful consideration. A system should be<\/p>\n
      developed so that State representatives can<\/p>\n
      meaningfully participate in the deliberations<\/p>\n
      of the WRC. On its part, NCTE should develop<\/p>\n
      comprehensive guidelines on issues, which the<\/p>\n
      State Governments should consider while<\/p>\n
      submitting their comments \/ recommendations.\n<\/p>\n
      Such guidelines should be stringent enough so<\/p>\n
      that it becomes difficult for the States to<\/p>\n
      make recommendations in defiance of norms and<\/p>\n
      standards. NCTE and its Regional Committees<\/p>\n
      should not undermine the role and importance<\/p>\n
      of the State Governments since planned and<\/p>\n
      coordinated development of teacher education<\/p>\n
      cannot be achieved without their active<\/p>\n
      participation.” (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
     8.10     … Yet, there is the problem of
\n      indiscriminate and out-of-turn consideration<\/p>\n
      of applications. Out of 4533 applications
\n      stated to be pending in the WRC, 305 appear to
\n      be under consideration. How and under what
\n      circumstances these 305 were identified for
\n      consideration is not clear. Table 5 clearly
\n      indicates that the maximum pendency in respect
\n      of the 305 cases relates to Maharashtra and<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                         33<\/span><\/p>\n
        Madhya Pradesh. In the case of Maharashtra,<\/p>\n
        the State Government has categorically stated<\/p>\n
        that no further institutions \/ course \/ intake<\/p>\n
        need be sanctioned….” (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
    34. The letter dated 18\/7\/2007 submitted by the
\n    Chairman of WRC to the Minister for Human Resource
\n    Development, Government of India appears to be the
\n    prelude for the intervention of the Central
\n    Government, expressing deep concern regarding the<\/p>\n
    mushrooming growth of B.Ed. and D.Ed. colleges under
\n    the WRC, in the following words:\n<\/p>\n
       “In the last one year, about a dozen letters
\n        were sent to N.C.T.E. (W.R.C.) by the
\n        Government of Maharashtra and Gujrat.\n<\/p>\n
        Similarly before some months, the Hon’ble
\n        Chief Minister of Maharashtra sent letters to
\n        the Hon’ble Human Resource Development
\n        Minister. Recently letters have been received<\/p>\n
        from the Government of Chattisgarh also. It
\n        is being repeatedly asked through these<\/p>\n
        letters that now no recognition should be
\n        given to new Colleges in the region. Madya
\n        Pradesh is not too an exception to this. In
\n        Bhopal wherein recognition was given to only 5
\n        Colleges upto 1995, this number has crossed 60<\/p>\n
        after the formation of NCTE.\n<\/p>\n
       From about one year, the SCERT representatives<\/p>\n
        of   Maharashtra and       Gujrat are not<\/p>\n
        participating in the meetings of W.R.C.\n<\/p>\n
       I, while discharging my social, educational<\/p>\n
        and moral responsibilities and duties, find it<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                      34<\/span><\/p>\n
        extremely necessary that now, without making<\/p>\n
        delay for a moment, there should be ban for<\/p>\n
        giving recognition to new institutions for a<\/p>\n
        period of minimum one year and the matters<\/p>\n
        should be kept pending till information is<\/p>\n
        gathered from all the State Governments and<\/p>\n
        SCERT Units that there are how many Primary,<\/p>\n
        Middle and Higher Secondary Schools and how<\/p>\n
        many colleges are being run regionwise. One<\/p>\n
        High Level MHRD Committee should decide on the<\/p>\n
        basis of these compiled figures that how many<\/p>\n
        institutions are   required regionwise.”\n<\/p>\n
        (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
    35. From the above extracted comments in the Kaul
\n    committee Report as well as the letter of the Chairman
\n    of WRC, we have no doubt in our mind that the
\n    recommendations of the State Government cannot be<\/p>\n
    ignored or they are of no consequence and in fact they
\n    are very much relevant to be taken into consideration,
\n    while processing the applications for grant of
\n    recognition \/ permission under Sections 14 and 15 of
\n    the NCTE Act respectively and it is not for the WRC to<\/p>\n
    devise its own guidelines and ignore the
\n    recommendations made by the State Government on the
\n    pretext that the recommendations made in the negative
\n    were not supported by any detailed reasons. The WRC
\n    ought to have read these reasons in the letters
\n    written on behalf of the Government of Maharashtra by
\n    various authorities including the Hon’ble Chief<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                     35<\/span><\/p>\n
    Minister right from the year 2005 onwards. It is not
\n    permissible for the WRC to contend that the<\/p>\n
    recommendations made by the State Government do not
\n    come in its way in granting recognitions \/ permissions
\n    so long as such applications fulfil the requirements<\/p>\n
    laid down under Section 14 of the NCTE Act and
\n    Regulations of 2006. These requirements cannot be
\n    considered in isolation and by ignoring the negative
\n    recommendations of the State Government. In fact, it<\/p>\n
    would be highly relevant to refer at this stage to the
\n    letter dated 21\/8\/2007 addressed to the Chairperson of
\n    the Council by the Government of India through the
\n    Ministry of Human Resource Development and admittedly
\n    this letter states about the directions under Section<\/p>\n
    29 of the NCTE Act to withhold the grant of
\n    recognition to Institutions Courses \/ additional<\/p>\n
    intake, falling under the jurisdiction of the Western
\n    Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher
\n    Education and the same reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
       “It has come to the notice of the Department
\n        of School Education & Literacy that there has
\n        been uneven and disproportionate growth in the
\n        number of recognitions granted to various<\/p>\n
        courses and institutions in the States falling
\n        under the Western Regional Committee of NCTE<\/p>\n
        and that while granting recognition the actual
\n        demand of teachers in particular States has
\n        been totally ignored.\n<\/p>\n
       In these circumstances, it is felt appropriate<\/p>\n
        to undertake a comprehensive review of the
\n        situation for taking necessary corrective
\n        measures. Therefore, as directed by the
\n        competent authority, NCTE is hereby directed
\n        under Section 29 of the NCTE Act, 1993, that<\/p>\n
        recognition may henceforth not be granted to
\n        any teacher training institutions \/ courses \/
\n        additional intake falling within the
\n        jurisdiction of the Western Regional Committee
\n        of NCTE, till a comprehensive review is
\n        undertaken or till further orders, whichever
\n        is earlier.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                      36<\/span><\/p>\n
    . Admittedly, these orders resulted in the<\/p>\n
    formation of Review Committee for WRC and hereinabove
\n    referred to as the Kaul Committee.\n<\/p>\n
    36. The Director of the Maharashtra State Council
\n    of Educational Research and Training vide his letter
\n    dated 21\/12\/2005 addressed to the Regional Director,
\n    WRC states thus:\n<\/p>\n
       “It is painful to note that the WRC – NCTE is
\n        recognising elementary Teacher Education
\n        Institutes (D.Ed. colleges) in Maharashtra,
\n        though there is no additional requirement of<\/p>\n
        intake, even in the context of Sarva Shiksha
\n        Abhiyan. It was requested by this Council not<\/p>\n
        to recognise any more D.Ed. colleges in the
\n        State after 31st August for the year 2005-06
\n        vide letter dated 30\/8\/2005. However, it is
\n        seen that after 31st August 2005, 20<\/p>\n
        Institutions have been recognised to run the
\n        D.Ed. course from the year 2005-06. It is
\n        stated here that there is no additional
\n        requirement of new D.Ed. colleges or<\/p>\n
        additional divisions in the existing D.Ed.
\n        colleges. This Council has requested WRC –\n<\/p>\n
        NCTE Bhopal vide its letter dated 7\/12\/2005
\n        not to consider proposals of the Institutions
\n        from the State of Maharashtra seeking
\n        recognition to D.Ed. (either new or
\n        additional units) for the year 2006-07. It<\/p>\n
        is, therefore, requested that WRC should not
\n        consider any proposal of the institution
\n        seeking recognition to run teacher education
\n        courses in Maharashtra henceforth till further
\n        instructions either from this Council or from<\/p>\n
        the State.”\n<\/p>\n
    . The Chief Minister of Maharashtra addressed a
\n    letter dated 27\/4\/2007 to the Minister of Human
\n    Resource Development, Government of India which reads
\n    as under:\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                     37<\/span><\/p>\n
       “Kindly refer to correspondence resting with
\n        your        demi-official      letter<\/p>\n
        No.P-27-68\/2006\/EE-10 dated September 14,
\n        2006, regarding sanctioning of new D.Ed.
\n        colleges in the State without obtaining No<\/p>\n
        Objection Certificate (NOC) from the State
\n        Government, wherein you had pointed out the
\n        provisions of new regulations dated January
\n        13, 2006 framed by the National Council<\/p>\n
        Teacher’s Education (NCTE) and suggested that
\n        the State Representatives taking part in the
\n        deliberations of Regional Committee meetings
\n        held for sanctioning new D.Ed. colleges may
\n        put up the view of the State Government in<\/p>\n
        respect of new D.Ed. colleges in these
\n        meetings.\n<\/p>\n
       I have been informed now that the State
\n        Representatives have always emphasized that
\n        presently, number of D.Ed. colleges in<\/p>\n
        Maharashtra is more than the requirements of
\n        the State. This view of State Government has
\n        also been communicated in writing to the NCTE
\n        on number of occasions. But it has been<\/p>\n
        observed that the NCTE is ignoring views of
\n        State Government and sanctioning new D.Ed.\n<\/p>\n
        colleges. The NCTE, Bhopal has sanctioned
\n        more than 250 new D.Ed. colleges and
\n        additional divisions in the State, during
\n        2006-07. Various sections of the society are
\n        raising the questions about this policy.\n<\/p>\n
       In the light of above, it is once again
\n        requested that the powers vested under Section
\n        29 of NCTE Act 1993 may be revoked and NCTE
\n        may be directed not to sanction any new D.Ed.\n<\/p>\n
        colleges in the State henceforth without the
\n        NOC from the State Government. I shall be
\n        grateful for favourable consideration.”\n<\/p>\n
    . On 30\/8\/2007 the Under Secretary – Government
\n    of Maharashtra in the Department of School Education
\n    and Sports wrote to the Regional Director (WRC)<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                      38<\/span><\/p>\n
    regarding the request to furnish recommendations under
\n    Clause 7(3) of the NCTE (Recognition, Norms and<\/p>\n
    Procedure), Regulations, 2005. It is not in dispute
\n    that the Regulations of 2005 have been brought into
\n    effect from 131\/2006 and, therefore, they are more<\/p>\n
    popularly referred to as Regulations of 2006. The
\n    letter dated 30\/8\/2007 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
       “Your attention is invited to your letter<\/p>\n
        written to the Director, State Council of
\n        Educational Research and Training, on the
\n        subject cited above. In the State of
\n        Maharashtra the number of D.Ed. colleges is
\n        more than sufficient. There is no need of new<\/p>\n
        D.Ed. college in the State.\n<\/p>\n
       Taking into consideration the above mentioned
\n        fact, the Director, State Council for
\n        Educational Research and Training, Pune has
\n        not recommended a single proposal.\n<\/p>\n
        Resultantly, the lists of proposals are
\n        returned herewith        with negative
\n        recommendations.”\n<\/p>\n
    37. We have noted from the record that in all the
\n    meetings (101st to 109th) of the WRC this letter of<\/p>\n
    the Government of Maharashtra was before the said
\n    Committee and despite this the Committee surprisingly
\n    observed and has maintained before us that the
\n    recommendation of the Government of Maharashtra in 132
\n    cases was only “No” without any justification and in<\/p>\n
    other “159” cases there was no recommendation at all.
\n    The WRC could not have ignored this letter dated
\n    30\/8\/2007 submitted on behalf of the Government of
\n    Maharashtra and this letter, in our opinion, furnished
\n    adequate reasons by the Government of Maharashtra not<\/p>\n
    to grant recommendations \/ permissions for new D.Ed.
\n    colleges \/ courses in the State of Maharashtra and it
\n    could not have been permissible for the WRC to state
\n    that the Government did not furnish any reasons beyond
\n    merely saying “No” or in majority of the cases the
\n    Government did not furnish its recommendations. This
\n    letter dated 30\/8\/2007 ought to have been read in<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                               39<\/span><\/p>\n
    reference to all the pending proposals from the State
\n    of Maharashtra for recognition \/ permission of new<\/p>\n
    D.Ed. colleges \/ courses.\n<\/p>\n
    38. Now let us come to the statistics regarding<\/p>\n
    the D.Ed. colleges, intake and the number of
\n    unemployed D.Ed. qualification holders in
\n    Maharashtra. The affidavit filed by the Secretary in
\n    the Department of School Education and Sports,<\/p>\n
    Government of Maharashtra on 12\/9\/2008 refers to the
\n    letters dated 2\/11\/2005, 11\/5\/2006, 20\/10\/2006 and
\n    5\/9\/2006 addressed by the Director of the State
\n    Council for Educational Research and Training, Pune to
\n    the WRC-NCTE and the letters dated 11\/7\/2006 and<\/p>\n
    30\/8\/2007 addressed by the Secretary in the Department
\n    of School Education and Sports as well as the letters<\/p>\n
    dated 23\/8\/2006 and 27\/4\/2007 addressed by the Chief
\n    Minister to the Minister for Human Resource
\n    Development. About the intake capacity increase by
\n    WRC, Bhopal in respect of D.Ed. colleges in the State<\/p>\n
    of Maharashtra the affidavit gives the following
\n    figures:\n<\/p>\n
    —————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
     Year Number of D.Ed.Colleges Intake capacity\n<\/p>\n
    —————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
    2004-05       325                    15527\n\n\n\n\n\n    2005-06       464 (325+139)               32210\n\n    2006-07       686 (464+222)               50602\n\n    2007-08       788 (686+102)               57452\n\n\n\n\n\n    2008-09 1089 (788+301)                      72300\n<\/pre>\n
    —————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
    Note:- As per the Government of Maharashtra for the
\n    present academic year in all 301 new colleges have
\n    been granted whereas the NCTE states that the said<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                          40<\/span><\/p>\n
    figure is 291.\n<\/p>\n
    . The said affidavit provides further statistics
\n    as under in respect of the primary schools and
\n    teachers:<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n    A)    No. of primary schools - 40,069 (Std.I to IV)\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n    B)    No. of upper primary\n          schools          - 26,514 (Std.I to VII)\n\n    C)    Total number of primary\n          teachers in the State - 4,87,668\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n    D)    The Pupil teacher ratio of the State is 34:1\n\n\n    E)\n                            \n          i.e. 1 teacher for 34 students.\n\n           The requirement of D.Ed. teachers is\n<\/pre>\n
          approximately 2% of all posts of teachers out<\/p>\n
          of 4,87,668 due to retirement, death and 1%
\n          for expansion of the system. Thus the
\n          requirement of primary teachers at the rate 3
\n          % per annum in the State comes to 14,630 per<\/p>\n
          year.\n<\/p>\n
    F)    The results of D.Ed. Examinations are around
\n         90% and, therefore, a large number of trained
\n          D.Ed. youths come out of the colleges every
\n          year.\n<\/p>\n
    39. During the course of hearing we had called
\n    upon the State Government to file an additional
\n    affidavit regarding the primary \/ middle schools of
\n    linguistic minorities and accordingly the Deputy<\/p>\n
    Director of Education, Nagpur Division has filed the
\n    affidavit on 26\/11\/2008 on behalf of the Secretary in
\n    the Department of Education, Government of
\n    Maharashtra. As per the said affidavit there are five
\n    linguistic minority primary schools in the State of
\n    Maharashtra viz. Hindi, English, Urdu, Gujrathi and
\n    Kannad. The statistics of the schools, teachers and<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                               41<\/span><\/p>\n
    capacity of D.Ed. colleges of these minority
\n    institutions are as under,<\/p>\n
    Sr. Medium Number of              Number of As per Capacity
\n    No.        primary                teachers        3%       of D.Ed.\n<\/p>\n
               schools                                Retd\/ colleges\n                                                      Ext\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n                                                      number\n                                                      of\n                                                      teachers\n<\/pre>\n
    ————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
    1. Hindi       382                 3096             93       1270\n\n    2. English 1345\n                                ig     14986           450       3831\n\n    3. Urdu        1284                 6960           209       3495\n                              \n    4. Gujarathi 137                       828          25        175\n\n    5. Kannad        116                    197            6       230\n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    —————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
    . The affidavit further gives the figure of
\n    mediumwise unemployed D.Ed. holders from the State of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra as of now as under:\n<\/p>\n
          —————————————-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Sr.No. Medium           Number of unemployed\n\n\n\n\n\n                                  D.Ed. holders\n<\/pre>\n
          —————————————-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          1.     Hindi          1110\n\n          2.     English         1232\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>\n                                             42<\/span>\n\n\n         3.    Urdu           4636\n\n\n\n\n                                                                               \n         4.    Gujrathi        55\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n         5.    Kannad           160<\/span>\n\n         6.     Marathi         41763\n<\/pre>\n
        —————————————–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Note:- These figures of unemployed D.Ed. holders are
\n    from the Employment Exchanges in the State of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra as has been clarified by the learned
\n    Additional government Pleader and they may not reflect<\/p>\n
    the actual number of unemployed D.Ed. holders, which
\n    could be more.\n<\/p>\n
    40. Though the NCTE – WRC claims that the D.Ed.\n<\/p>\n
    qualifications granted in the State of Maharashtra are
\n    also recognised in other States under its
\n    jurisdiction, we do not find much force in these
\n    submissions. The examining authority for the D.Ed.\n<\/p>\n
    examination in the State of Maharashtra within the
\n    meaning of Section 2(d) of the NCTE Act is the<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra State Council for Educational Research and
\n    Training and it is not necessary that the syllabus
\n    framed by the State Council is akin to the syllabus in
\n    other States. At the same time a vast majority of the
\n    primary schools all over the country are in the local<\/p>\n
    languages. For example in Maharashtra a vast majority
\n    of trained school teachers can teach only in Marathi
\n    though for other languages like Urdu, Kannada,
\n    Gujarathi, Hindi and English, there may be a
\n    possibility of the D.Ed. qualification being<\/p>\n
    recognised in the neighbouring States under the WRC
\n    but that by itself does not mean that all the D.Ed.
\n    holders in the State of Maharashtra are recognised in
\n    such States and they would be eligible for seeking
\n    employment as primary teachers. Marathi is the medium
\n    of instruction only in Maharashtra and may be in few
\n    schools in the neighbouring States of Karnataka,<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                      43<\/span><\/p>\n
    Gujarath and Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, over all
\n    scenario in Maharashtra on the employment particulars<\/p>\n
    is required to be considered and the stand taken by
\n    the NCTE – WRC is only hypothetical and de hors of the
\n    prevailing situation viz. different linguistic States<\/p>\n
    basis under its jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
    41. The issue of unemployment amongst the D.Ed. \/
\n    B.Ed. holders in the State of Maharashtra is not of<\/p>\n
    recent origin and it has been hunting the State
\n    Government for the last more than eight years. The
\n    service conditions of teachers in private schools
\n    including the pay scales are governed by the
\n    Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions<\/p>\n
    of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the MEPS Rules
\n    1981 framed thereunder. The pay scales of the school<\/p>\n
    teachers are prescribed under the Rules of 1981 and
\n    they are subject to revision from time to time as per
\n    the orders issued by the State Government. In the
\n    year 1999 the Government of Maharashtra made<\/p>\n
    applicable the Fifth Pay Commission pay scales to the
\n    school teachers as well. It resulted in a heavy
\n    financial burden on the exchequers as by that time a
\n    vast majority of private schools were fully aided by<\/p>\n
    the State Government. Faced with the precarious
\n    financial conditions, vast number of vacancies of<\/p>\n
    trained teachers to be filled in in the schools and
\n    massive unemployment amongst the D.Ed. \/ B.Ed.
\n    holders, the State Government came out with a
\n    compromise formula for appointment of Shikshan Sevaks,
\n    rather than appointing assistant teachers on<\/p>\n
    probation. The State Government issued the Government
\n    Resolution dated 13th October 2000 for appointment of
\n    Shikshan Sevaks on a consolidated monthly honorarium
\n    of Rs.3000\/- in respect of D.Ed. teachers and it
\n    provided for appointment of Shikshan Sevaks for a<\/p>\n
    period of three years. If a trained teacher were to
\n    be appointed on regular basis, the monthly salary
\n    would exceed Rs.10,000\/- whereas by appointment of
\n    Shikshan Sevak the monthly honorarium \/ remuneration
\n    would be Rs.3000\/-. Under Section 5 of the MEPS Act,
\n    1977 every Assistant Teacher appointed in a private
\n    school is required to be on probation for a period of<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                     44<\/span><\/p>\n
    two years whereas the appointment of Shikshan Sevak is
\n    for three years. However, the scheme of Shikshan<\/p>\n
    Sevaks appointment provided for absorption as
\n    confirmed teacher on completion of tenure of three
\n    years as Shikshan Sevak and Section 5 of the MEPS Act,<\/p>\n
    1977 came to be suitably amended as per the
\n    Maharashtra Amendment of 2005. A number of writ
\n    petitions were filed before this Court challenging the
\n    scheme of Shikshan Sevaks and this Court allowed the<\/p>\n
    State Government to implement the scheme, impliedly on
\n    the “doctrine of necessity”. There were vacancies of
\n    trained teachers in the primary, secondary as well as
\n    higher secondary schools and at the same time it was
\n    not possible for the State Government to bear the<\/p>\n
    additional financial burden of making such
\n    appointments on regular basis as the salaries required<\/p>\n
    to be paid were as per the Fifth Pay Commission
\n    recommendations. On the other hand, a large number of
\n    D.Ed. \/ B.Ed. holders were unemployed and therefore,
\n    the State Government devised the Shikshan Sevak scheme<\/p>\n
    which has worked satisfactorily during the last about
\n    eight years and the implementation of the scheme
\n    itself is based on three factors and one of them being
\n    the unemployment of D.Ed. \/ B.Ed. holders as noted<\/p>\n
    earlier and despite the said scheme having been
\n    implemented for the last eight years, the unemployment<\/p>\n
    of B.Ed. \/ D.Ed. holders has been on the rise
\n    steadily, mainly because the massive number of D.Ed.
\n    \/ B.Ed. holders coming out of the new colleges
\n    started by the private institutions and the
\n    limitations on the number of new schools either aided<\/p>\n
    or unaided. In fact in the State of Maharashtra
\n    almost every village panchayat or group panchayat has
\n    primary schools and the State Government has gone
\n    further by opening such schools in even tiny hamlets
\n    in the hilly \/ tribal tracks of various regions of the<\/p>\n
    State. Despite new schools being allowed to be opened
\n    every year, it is evident and as has been brought out
\n    in the affidavit of the State Government that the
\n    requirement of additional teachers every year in the
\n    future is not likely to increase beyond five per cent,
\n    in pre-primary , primary and middle school sections.
\n    It is also well known that in the middle school<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                      45<\/span><\/p>\n
    section attached to the high schools, 25 per cent of
\n    the teachers are required to be trained graduates i.e.<\/p>\n
    B.Ed. degree holders, in the State of Maharashtra.
\n    In short the issue of unemployment of D.Ed. \/ B.Ed.
\n    holders has not been daunting the State of Maharashtra<\/p>\n
    only from the year 2005 onwards and the State
\n    Government has been facing the said problem right from
\n    the year 2000. Even if the requirement of primary and
\n    middle school teachers is expected to increse between<\/p>\n
    ten to twenty per cent every year, in our opinion, the
\n    existing D.Ed. colleges are adequate to cater to
\n    these numbers.\n<\/p>\n
    42. Now coming to the second issue of the binding<\/p>\n
    nature of the directions issued by the Union of India
\n    to the Council under Section 29 of the NCTE Act, we<\/p>\n
    have already reproduced the said provisions in the
\n    earlier part of this judgment (paragraph no.15). As
\n    per the petitioners, the Council and the WRC have not
\n    complied with these directions and more particularly<\/p>\n
    the directions issued vide communication dated
\n    23\/11\/2007. Mr.Mishra, the learned Assistant
\n    Solicitor General appearing for the Central Government
\n    submitted that the directions in the order dated<\/p>\n
    23\/11\/2007 are by way of policy decision by the
\n    Central Government to the Council.\n<\/p>\n
    . These directions are in multifolds and could
\n    be summarised as under:\n<\/p>\n
       (a) The WRC, Bhopal will process all<\/p>\n
        pending applications ensuring, however, that
\n        it scrupulously takes into account the view of
\n        the State Government on the issue of sanction
\n        or rejection of applications for recognition.\n<\/p>\n
       (b) In case WRC, Bhopal differs with the
\n        view of the State Government, it shall record
\n        specific reasons in writing in such case and
\n        submit a special report to NCTE headquarters.\n<\/p>\n
       (c) NCTE shall expedite the study on the
\n        demand and supply of teachers \/ teaching<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                     46<\/span><\/p>\n
        capacity specially for the States of
\n        Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and<\/p>\n
        Chattisgarh; and<\/p>\n
       (d) The recommendations in respect of<\/p>\n
        amendments to NCTE Act and its Regulations
\n        shall be carefully examined in consultation
\n        with the Ministry of Law.\n<\/p>\n
    43. As per the additional affidavit filed by the
\n    Respondent nos.3 and 4 pursuant to the orders passed
\n    by this Court on 18\/10\/2008, the WRC, Bhopal
\n    considered the directions of the Government of India
\n    as reproduced hereinabove on the backdrop of the<\/p>\n
    judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sant
\n    Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Sanstha (Supra) in its 100th<\/p>\n
    meeting held from 17th to 19th December 2007 and took
\n    decisions as under so as to process the pending
\n    applications as per the directions of the Union of
\n    India:\n<\/p>\n
       (1) If there is any positive recommendation
\n        from the State Government, recognition \/
\n        permission will be granted as per NCTE<\/p>\n
        Regulations.\n<\/p>\n
       (2) If the State Government has not
\n        communicated any positive or negative remark
\n        within 60 days from the issue of the letter
\n        from WRC to the concerned State Government,
\n        cases will be considered on merit basis.\n<\/p>\n
       (3) In case of negative recommendations,
\n        without any justification, cases will be
\n        considered on merit basis.\n<\/p>\n
       (4) If the State Government gives negative
\n        recommendations in respect of a particular
\n        institution with justification and in the
\n        opinion of the committee justification is
\n        genuine, the case will be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
        Intimation of such cases will be sent to NCTE
\n        Headquarters.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                    47<\/span><\/p>\n
       (5) In case WRC defers with the negative and<\/p>\n
        reasoned recommendations of the State
\n        Government, cases will be forwarded to the
\n        NCTE Headquarters.\n<\/p>\n
    44. We do not find any fault with decision nos.1
\n    and 2 above taken by the WRC. However, we find faults
\n    with decision nos.3 to 5, on the backdrop of the<\/p>\n
    directions issued by the Union of India to the Council
\n    vide its letter dated 23\/11\/2007. The Union of India
\n    directed WRC, Bhopal to scrupulously take into account
\n    the view of the State Government on the issue of
\n    sanction or rejection of application for recognition<\/p>\n
    while processing of pending application and in case
\n    the committee differed with the view of the State<\/p>\n
    Government, it was required to record specific reasons
\n    in writing in such cases and submit a special report
\n    to the NCTE Headquarters. It was not permissible for
\n    the WRC, Bhopal to consider and allow the applications<\/p>\n
    for recognition where the State Government had not
\n    recommended the applications. In such cases the WRC,
\n    Bhopal, if it differed with the view of the State
\n    Government, was required to record specific reasons in<\/p>\n
    writing and submit a special report to the Council.
\n    However, the WRC, Bhopal in its wisdom took a decision<\/p>\n
    that if the negative recommendations were found to be
\n    without justification, the applications will be
\n    considered on merit basis and further if the negative
\n    recommendations of the State Government were without
\n    any justification and in the opinion of the committee,<\/p>\n
    the justification was genuine, the case will be
\n    rejected. We have no doubt that such a power was not
\n    vested with the WRC as per the directions of the Union
\n    of India vide its letter dated 23\/11\/2007. Admittedly
\n    these directions were on the backdrop of the Kaul<\/p>\n
    Committee recommendations which came down heavily on
\n    the working of the WRC, Bhopal. A number of serious
\n    infirmities in the working of the said committee were
\n    found and one of the serious observations made was the
\n    decision of the WRC to consider only 300 and odd
\n    applications as against the pendency of 2045
\n    applications from the State of Maharashtra as on<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                      48<\/span><\/p>\n
    1\/10\/2007. Even before us no satisfactory
\n    justification has been provided as to why the WRC<\/p>\n
    considered only this limited number of applications.\n<\/p>\n
    45. Section 29 of the NCTE Act is in two parts.\n<\/p>\n
    Sub-section (1) states that the Council shall in the
\n    discharge of its functions and duties under the Act be
\n    bound by such directions on the questions of policy as
\n    the Central Government may give in writing to it from<\/p>\n
    time to time and as per Sub-section (2) the decision
\n    of the Central Government as to whether a question is
\n    one of policy or not shall be final. It was rightly
\n    submitted by Mr.Mishra, the learned Assistant
\n    Solicitor General that the Government of India was<\/p>\n
    concerned with the representations made by some States
\n    under the WRC and more particularly the State of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra on the mushrooming growth of D.Ed.
\n    colleges and also unwittingly on the commercialisation
\n    of the teacher education. As a matter of policy
\n    decision the Central Government directed vide its<\/p>\n
    order dated 23\/11\/2007 that the objections raised by
\n    the Government of Maharashtra on recognitions to be
\n    granted to new D.Ed. colleges were required to be
\n    scrupulously considered and that too on the basis of<\/p>\n
    the demand and supply for primary teachers in the
\n    academic years to come. It is not the case of the<\/p>\n
    Council that the directions vide the order dated
\n    23\/11\/2007 were not the directions on the questions of
\n    policy by the Central Government. It is not
\n    permissible for the private respondents to contend
\n    that the order dated 23\/11\/2007 cannot be termed as<\/p>\n
    directions on questions of policy by the Central
\n    Government. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 clearly
\n    states that the decision of the Central Government as
\n    to whether a question is one of policy or not shall be
\n    final. The provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the<\/p>\n
    NCTE Act cannot be considered in isolation from other
\n    provisions contained therein and though the WRC was
\n    required to consider the pending applications on the
\n    basis of the provisions of Section 14 of the NCTE Act
\n    as well as the Regulations of 2006, the Council shall
\n    in discharge of its functions and duties under the
\n    said Act be bound by directions issued by the Central<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                        49<\/span><\/p>\n
    Government in writing to it from time to time on the
\n    questions of policy. If the Central Government by way<\/p>\n
    of policy decides that in view of the saturation of
\n    D.Ed. qualification holders, no applications for
\n    recognition be considered \/ processed under Section 14<\/p>\n
    of the said Act, such directions are binding under
\n    Section 29 therein on the Council and the Council or
\n    its subordinate Regional Committee shall not be
\n    entitled to proceed with the applications. In the<\/p>\n
    instant case by way of a policy decision the Central
\n    Government directed the Council that in case the WRC
\n    differed with the negative recommendations of the
\n    State Government, a special report was required to be
\n    submitted by the WRC to the Council and the Council<\/p>\n
    was required to undertake study of demand and supply
\n    of primary teachers and take further appropriate steps<\/p>\n
    on such applications. Any decision taken by the WRC
\n    as a subordinate body of the Council and contrary to
\n    the directions issued under Section 29 by the Central
\n    Government is unsustainable and it cannot claim that<\/p>\n
    the applications have been considered under Section 14
\n    of the NCTE Act and support its decision to grant
\n    recognitions.\n<\/p>\n
    . On completion of the study for demand and
\n    supply of trained teachers by the Council, and such a<\/p>\n
    report being placed before the Central Government
\n    through the Ministry of Human Resource Development,
\n    the Central Government is empowered to issue
\n    directions under Section 29 of the NCTE Act by way of
\n    policy decisions that,<\/p>\n
       (a) keep the applications for recognition
\n        pending and not to invoke the powers under
\n        Section 14 of NCTE Act;\n<\/p>\n
       (b) not to grant any further recognitions for
\n        a specific period; or<\/p>\n
       (c) not to sanction any further new D.Ed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                      50<\/span><\/p>\n
        colleges;\n<\/p>\n
       (d) limit the number of recognitions along
\n        with the intake capacity for a particular<\/p>\n
        academic year or years.\n<\/p>\n
    . On the face of such directions the Council or
\n    any of its Committees cannot claim that the powers
\n    under Sections 14 or 15 of the NCTE Act will be
\n    invoked and applications will be processed so as to
\n    start new D.Ed. colleges \/ courses in any State or in<\/p>\n
    the State where such directions have been issued by
\n    the Central Government. On the basis of the demand<\/p>\n
    and supply of trained teachers in the schools in a
\n    particular State, the Central Government, by way of
\n    its policy decision, cannot be denied to have the
\n    powers under Section 29 of the NCTE Act to direct the<\/p>\n
    Council and its Committees not to process the
\n    applications for such recognition \/ permission for the
\n    period as it may deem fit. The scheme of the NCTE Act
\n    must be read so as to vest such powers of policy<\/p>\n
    decision with the Central Government to issue
\n    directions to the Council under Section 29 of the said<\/p>\n
    Act, lest invoking the provisions of Section 14
\n    therein in isolation may lead to an absurdity and
\n    defeat the whole purpose of the NCTE Act.\n<\/p>\n
    46. It was urged before us and as has been stated<\/p>\n
    in the replies filed by the Council and the WRC that
\n    the State Government had given no recommendations in
\n    159 cases and gave a recommendation of only “No” in
\n    132 cases. This contention of the respondent nos.3
\n    and 4 is in utter disregard to the letter dated<\/p>\n
    30\/8\/2007 submitted by the State Government to the
\n    Regional Director, WRC, Bhopal and as has been
\n    referred to para no.30. This letter ought to have
\n    been read as a recommendation of the State Government
\n    in all the applications for recognition \/ permission
\n    and the recommendation of the State Government could
\n    not have been read as only “No” without any further<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                     51<\/span><\/p>\n
    justification. The stand taken by the respondent
\n    nos.3 and 4 in this regard is totally frivolous and in<\/p>\n
    all the meetings commencing from 101st to 109th
\n    meetings of the WRC the letter dated 30\/8\/2007 was
\n    very much on record. The Kaul Committee very<\/p>\n
    specifically observed that the representative of the
\n    State of Maharashtra had stopped attending the WRC
\n    meetings for the last more than one year as the State
\n    Government was not in favour of granting any new<\/p>\n
    recognitions \/ permissions in view of the fact that a
\n    number of D.Ed. colleges in the State of Maharashtra
\n    were more than sufficient and a large number of D.Ed.
\n    holders remained unemployed. The decisions taken by
\n    the WRC, Bhopal and on the basis of the guidelines<\/p>\n
    framed by it in its 100th meeting so as to process the
\n    pending applications are in breach of the directions<\/p>\n
    issued by the Union of India vide its order dated
\n    23\/11\/2007 and so far as the State of Maharashtra is
\n    concerned the only course available to WRC, Bhopal was
\n    to make a special report on all these applications and<\/p>\n
    submit it to the Council. On receipt of such report,
\n    the Council in turn was required to expedite the study
\n    on the demand supply of teachers \/ teaching capacity
\n    for the State of Maharashtra and the consider such<\/p>\n
    applications for recognition \/ permissions for new
\n    D.Ed. colleges \/ courses on the basis of such a data.\n<\/p>\n
    The directions of the Union of India in its order
\n    dated 23\/11\/2007 are unambiguous and the reliance of
\n    the WRC on the judgment in the case of Sant
\n    Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Sanstha (Supra) does not support
\n    it to deviate from the directions of the Union of<\/p>\n
    India. We have already noted in the earlier part of
\n    this judgment that the law laid down by the Apex Court
\n    in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Sanstha is
\n    not applicable in the instant case as the petition
\n    involves a limited issue of following the directions<\/p>\n
    issued under Section 29 by the Union of India. The
\n    decisions taken by the WRC, Bhopal in its 101st to
\n    109th meetings for granting the impugned recognitions
\n    are, therefore, unsustainable as they are in breach of
\n    the directions issued by the Union of India under
\n    Section 29 of the NCTE Act and as set out in its order
\n    dated 23\/11\/2007. The learned counsel for the private<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                      52<\/span><\/p>\n
    respondents, as noted earlier, contended that the said
\n    order dated 23\/11\/2007 should not be termed as valid<\/p>\n
    directions by the Union of India as the order was not
\n    authenticated in the name of the President of India.
\n    These contentions are far-fetched and are, therefore,<\/p>\n
    required to be rejected. It is important to note that
\n    the respondent nos.3 and 4 i.e. the Council and the
\n    Committee fairly conceded that the order dated
\n    23\/11\/2007 sets out the directions by the Government<\/p>\n
    of India to the Council under Section 29 of the NCTE
\n    Act and the directions are binding on the Council.
\n    The WRC, Bhopal is part of the Council and the
\n    decisions taken by the WRC, Bhopal for granting
\n    recognitions \/ permissions are on behalf of the<\/p>\n
    Council, though the Council still retains the power of
\n    appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act. We are of<\/p>\n
    the considered opinion that all the pending
\n    applications as of 1\/10\/2007 were required to be
\n    considered after the Council had completed the study
\n    on the demand and supply of teachers \/ teaching<\/p>\n
    capacity in the State of Maharashtra and with the
\n    assistance of the Examining Body viz. the Maharashtra
\n    State Council for Educational Research and Training at
\n    Pune. On the face of the letter dated 30\/8\/2007 and<\/p>\n
    the earlier correspondence right from the letter dated
\n    21\/12\/2005 by the Director of the Maharashtra State<\/p>\n
    Council for Educational Research and Training upto the
\n    letter written by the Chief Minister of Maharashtra to
\n    the Minister for Human Resource Development,
\n    Government of India, on 27\/4\/2007, the WRC ought to
\n    have accepted the opposition of the State Government<\/p>\n
    with specific reasons \/ justification. It was not
\n    empowered to adjudicate or sit in appeal over the
\n    reasons furnished by the State of Maharashtra. WRC,
\n    Bhopal was duty bound to make a special report of all
\n    the pending applications coming from the State of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra for recognition \/ permission as on
\n    1\/10\/2007 and submit to the Council. It was
\n    thereafter left to the Council to consider these
\n    applications on the basis of the study on the demand
\n    and supply of teachers in the pre primary, primary and
\n    middle schools (higher primary schools). Hence the
\n    recognitions \/ permissions granted by the WRC, Bhopal<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                       53<\/span><\/p>\n
    on behalf of the Council in its 100st to 109th
\n    meetings are unsustainable and in any case as per the<\/p>\n
    order passed by this Court on 29\/8\/2008 all these
\n    permissions were subject to the result of the present
\n    writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
    47. In the premises this petition succeeds partly.
\n    The recognitions \/ permissions granted by the Council\n<\/p>\n
    – WRC, Bhopal in its 104th to 109th meetings and<\/p>\n
    pertaining to the State of Maharashtra for
\n    establishment of 291 new D.Ed. colleges \/ courses (as
\n    the case may be) are hereby quashed and set aside.
\n    The WRC, Bhopal shall submit a special report in
\n    respect of the pending applications as on 1\/10\/2007<\/p>\n
    from the State of Maharashtra (2045 applications as
\n    per the Kaul Committee Report) to the Council by<\/p>\n
    taking into consideration the recommendations of the
\n    State Government as reflected vide its letter dated
\n    30\/8\/2007. The Council, in turn, will complete the
\n    study on the demand and supply of teachers in the<\/p>\n
    primary \/ higher primary schools in the State of
\n    Maharashtra with the assistance of \/ in collaboration
\n    with the Maharashtra State Council for Educational
\n    Research and Training at Pune before 30th April 2009<\/p>\n
    and place the said study report before the Central
\n    Government through the Ministry of Human Resource<\/p>\n
    Development at the earliest possible and seek further
\n    directions. Based on such directions under Section 29
\n    of the NCTE Act to be issued by the Central Government
\n    the Council shall take further appropriate steps to
\n    deal with such applications as pending on the day the<\/p>\n
    directions are issued by the Central Government, for
\n    the recognitions \/ permissions for D.Ed. course in
\n    the State of Maharashtra for the academic years
\n    2009-10 onwards.\n<\/p>\n
    48. Rule is made absolute in terms of the above
\n    directions but without any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
       (A.H.JOSHI,J.)       (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:12:55 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Gangadhar vs The Union Of India on 7 January, 2009 Bench: B.H. Marlapalle, A. H. Joshi 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 […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-136393","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGangadhar vs The Union Of India on 7 January, 2009 - 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\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gangadhar vs The Union Of India on 7 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2\" \/>\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=\"2009-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-11T00:05:39+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=\"75 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gangadhar vs The Union Of India on 7 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-11T00:05:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":14764,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2\",\"name\":\"Gangadhar vs The Union Of India on 7 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-11T00:05:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gangadhar vs The Union Of India on 7 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Gangadhar vs The Union Of India on 7 January, 2009 - 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\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gangadhar vs The Union Of India on 7 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-11T00:05:39+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":"75 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gangadhar vs The Union Of India on 7 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-11T00:05:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2"},"wordCount":14764,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2","name":"Gangadhar vs The Union Of India on 7 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-11T00:05:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-7-january-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gangadhar vs The Union Of India on 7 January, 2009"}]},{"@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\/136393","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=136393"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136393\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136393"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136393"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136393"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}