{"id":14125,"date":"2011-10-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011"},"modified":"2017-08-15T04:21:50","modified_gmt":"2017-08-14T22:51:50","slug":"swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Swami Vivekanand College Of Edu.& … vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Swami Vivekanand College Of Edu.& … vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 October, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya<\/div>\n
                                                                                                         1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          REPORTABLE\n\n                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5961 OF 2010\n\n\nSWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE \n\nOF EDUCATION & ORS.                                              ... APPELLANTS\n\n\n                                           Versus\n\n\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                           ... RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n\n                                    J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.      Appellants-institutions,   which   are   recognised   by   the   National   Council <\/p>\n
for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the `Council’), impart teacher <\/p>\n
training   course   (B.Ed.).   On   their   request   the   `Council’   permitted   additional <\/p>\n
intake   of   students   for   such   course   without   seeking   accreditation   and   Letter <\/p>\n
Grade   B   from   National   Assessment   and   Accreditation   Council   (NAAC).\n<\/p>\n
Subsequently, the `Council’ framed “National Council for Teacher Education <\/p>\n
(Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter referred to <\/p>\n
as `Regulations, 2007) by notification dated 10th  December, 2007 introducing <\/p>\n
Regulation   8(4)   and   8(5)   which   the   appellants   unsuccessfully   challenged <\/p>\n
before the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
2.      As per Regulation 8(4) an institution is required to be accredited with <\/p>\n
the   NAAC   with   a   Letter   Grade   B,   whereas   as   per   Regulation   8(5)   those <\/p>\n
                                                                                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
institutions   which   had   been   granted   additional   intake   in   B.Ed.   and   B.P.Ed.\n<\/p>\n
teacher training courses after promulgation of the Regulations, 2005   i.e. 13 th <\/p>\n
January, 2006 are required to get themselves accredited with the NAAC with a <\/p>\n
Letter Grade B before Ist April, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
3.        The   validity   of   Regulation   8(4)   and   8(5)   was   challenged   by   the  <\/p>\n
appellants on the following grounds:\n<\/p>\n
          (i)     Their right to establish and run their institutions enshrined under <\/p>\n
         Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India stands curtailed;<\/p>\n
          (ii)    they will suffer constitutional injury on account of the `Council’ <\/p>\n
         outsourcing   its   statutory   functions   in   the   absence   of   statutory <\/p>\n
         authorisation for sub-delegation of the delegated power;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
(iii)             by giving a retrospective effect to the Regulations and<\/p>\n
(iv)              due to non-performance of statutory duties by the `Council’.\n<\/p>\n
4.        The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that the Regulation <\/p>\n
8(4)   merely   puts   a   `condition’   for   making   an   application   that   the   applicant <\/p>\n
should have itself accredited  with the NAAC with a Letter Grade B; the Court  <\/p>\n
further   held   that   the   Regulation   8(5)     is   prospective   in   nature,   being   a <\/p>\n
`condition’ imposed in continuation of additional intake.\n<\/p>\n
5.        During   the   pendency   of   the   present   appeal   the   `Council’   framed   the <\/p>\n
“National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norm and Procedure) <\/p>\n
                                                                                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
Regulations,   2009   w.e.f.   31st  August,   2009   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the <\/p>\n
“NCTE   Regulations,   2009”)     but   as   Regulation   8(4)   and   8(5)   is   identically <\/p>\n
worded   so   far  as   B.Ed.   course,     this   Court   by   order  dated   15th  March,   2010 <\/p>\n
permitted the appellants to challenge the validity of new Regulation 8(4) and <\/p>\n
8(5) of Regulations, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
STAND OF THE APPELLANTS<\/p>\n
6.      Learned counsel for the appellants while contending that there was no <\/p>\n
requirement for any approved institutions to get them accredited with NAAC  <\/p>\n
for   enhancement   of   intake   of   seats   in   the   course,   the   following   submissions <\/p>\n
were made:\n<\/p>\n
      (i)        The   `Council’   cannot   sub-delegate   its   functions   and   duties <\/p>\n
      conferred   upon  it   by  the  parent   Act   i.e.  NCTE  Act,   1993  to   an   outside  <\/p>\n
      institution   namely   NAAC   in   absence   of   express   authorisation   by   the <\/p>\n
      parent Act.   Therefore, Regulation 8(4) ultra vires the NCTE Act, 1993 <\/p>\n
      and   Article   14   of   the   Constitution   of   India   being   against   the   principle <\/p>\n
      “delegates non potest delegare”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (ii)       The NCTE Act, 1993 does not authorise the `Council’ to frame <\/p>\n
      Regulations  retrospectively; in  absence  of such power the  delegatee  the  <\/p>\n
      `Council’   cannot   make   subordinate   legislation   retrospectively.     The <\/p>\n
      requirement,   therefore,   contemplated   under   Regulation   8(5)   being   ex-<\/p>\n
      facie   retrospective,   taking   away   the   right   of   the   appellants   to   continue  <\/p>\n
                                                                                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
      with the additional seats of B.Ed. course, is violative of Article 19(1)(g)  <\/p>\n
      of the Constitution.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (iii)      Regulation   8(5)   and   paragraph   6   of   notice   dated   Ist   October, <\/p>\n
      2008  issued by  the  `Council’ asking all  institutions  which were already  <\/p>\n
      granted additional intake in B.Ed.\/B.P.Ed. courses after Ist January, 2006 <\/p>\n
      to get themselves accredited with NAAC with Grade B certificate   ultra <\/p>\n
      vires the NCTE Act, 1993 disturbing and altering the vested and accrued <\/p>\n
      fundamental rights of the institutions.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
7.         Learned counsel for the appellants referred to provisions of NCTE Act,  <\/p>\n
1993   and   relevant   Rules   and   the   decisions   of   this   Court   which   will   be <\/p>\n
discussed at an appropriate stage.\n<\/p>\n
Stand of respondent-NCTE<\/p>\n
8.         Per   contra,   according   to   the   learned   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
respondent-`Council’ Regulation 8(4) does not amount to delegation of any of <\/p>\n
the   powers   of   the   `Council’.     It   merely   imposed   a   `condition’   required   for <\/p>\n
opening  a new  course or intake for students  as empowered under the  NCTE <\/p>\n
Act,   1993.   The   Regulation   8(5)   does   not   amount   to   giving   effect   from <\/p>\n
retrospective   date,   as   such   power   was   already   extending   under   Regulations,  <\/p>\n
2005.\n<\/p>\n
9.         He would further submit as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
(i)       The   condition   as   stipulated   in   impugned   Regulation   8((4)   was <\/p>\n
already   existing   even   earlier   in   Regulations,   2005.   Regulation   8(3)   and <\/p>\n
8(4) of Regulations, 2005 was relaxed for certain period vide notification <\/p>\n
dated 20th  July, 2006 and 10th  December, 2007. Some of the institutions <\/p>\n
had made applications  to the  Regional Committees  of the  `Council’ for  <\/p>\n
grant of permission or recognition for additional intake of seats in favour <\/p>\n
of   recognised   course   during   the   period   from   21st  July,   2006   to   10th <\/p>\n
December, 2007. Their applications were processed and decided without <\/p>\n
insisting   upon   the   requirement   of   having   three   academic   sessions   of <\/p>\n
running   the   course   as   was   stipulated   under   Regulation   8(3)   or   having <\/p>\n
accredited   with   NAAC   with   a   Letter   Grade   B   as   was   stipulated   under <\/p>\n
Regulation   8(4).   Since,   the   conditions   under   Regulation   8(3)   and   8(4) <\/p>\n
were brought into force by Regulations, 2007, it was decided that those <\/p>\n
institutions which have been granted recognition for enhancement of seats <\/p>\n
without insisting upon the condition of having accredited with the NAAC, <\/p>\n
have been directed to get themselves accredited with NAAC.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)      The condition stipulated under Regulation 8(4) does not amount <\/p>\n
to sub-delegation of power but merely a `condition’ laid down for grant of <\/p>\n
recognition of new course or for enhancement of additional intake in the <\/p>\n
existing course. So  far as processing, scrutinising and deciding upon an <\/p>\n
application   for   recognition\/permission   for   conducting   teacher   training <\/p>\n
course   is   concerned,   it   is   the   `Council’   and   its   Regional   Committees <\/p>\n
                                                                                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
       which are alone responsible and entrusted with discharging such functions <\/p>\n
       as enshrined under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
       (iii)     The Regulation 8(5) only provides that the institutions who have <\/p>\n
       been   granted   recognition   for   enhancement   of   additional   intake   of   seats <\/p>\n
       during   the   period   of   relaxation   to   obtain   accreditation   before   Ist   April, <\/p>\n
       2010 and the same is prospective in nature.\n<\/p>\n
10.      In this case the questions arise for determination are:\n<\/p>\n
       (i)       Whether under Regulation 8(4) the `Council’ has sub-delegated <\/p>\n
       any of its functions and duties conferred by parent Act to NAAC; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       (ii)      Whether   Regulation   8(5)   is   retrospective   in   nature   affecting <\/p>\n
       fundamental   rights   of   appellants   guaranteed   under   Article   19(1)(g)   of <\/p>\n
       Constitution of India.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
11.      Before examining the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the <\/p>\n
parties, it would be convenient to notice the relevant provisions of the NCTE <\/p>\n
Act, 1993 and the Regulations framed thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
12.      The   NCTE   Act,   1993   was   enacted   to   maintain   standards   of   teacher <\/p>\n
education with a view to achieve planned and co-ordinated development of the <\/p>\n
teacher   education   system   throughout   the   country.   It   was   decided   that   the <\/p>\n
`Council’   would   be   provided   with   necessary   resources   and   capability   to <\/p>\n
accredit   institutions   of   teacher   education   and   provide   guidance   regarding <\/p>\n
                                                                                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
curricula and methods.  It was also decided to provide statutory powers to the <\/p>\n
`Council’ with the objective of determination, maintenance and co-ordination <\/p>\n
of   standards   in   teacher   education,   laying   down   norms   and   guidelines   for <\/p>\n
various courses, promotion of innovation in this field and to establish a suitable <\/p>\n
system   of   continuing   education   of   teachers   (see:   Statement   of   Objects   and  <\/p>\n
Reasons of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993).\n<\/p>\n
13.     Section 12 of the NCTE Act, 1993 empowers  the `Council’ to take all <\/p>\n
steps for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education <\/p>\n
and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teacher education.\n<\/p>\n
For the purposes of such functions the Council is empowered to evolve suitable <\/p>\n
performance   appraisal   system,   norms   and   mechanism   for   enforcing <\/p>\n
accountability   on   recognised   institutions   under   Section   12(k)   which   is   as <\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
                “12(k)  evolve   suitable   performance   appraisal   system,  <\/p>\n
                norms   and   mechanism   for   enforcing   accountability   on  <\/p>\n
                recognised institutions;”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
14.     For the purpose of ascertaining whether the recognised institutions are <\/p>\n
functioning   in   accordance   with   the   provision   of   the   Act,   the   Council   is <\/p>\n
empowered to cause inspection of any such institution in such manner as may <\/p>\n
be prescribed under Section 13 of the NCTE Act, 1993.\n<\/p>\n
15.     The `Council’ is empowered to recognise institutions offering course or <\/p>\n
training in teacher education under Section 14.   For opening a new course or <\/p>\n
                                                                                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
training by recognised institutions the `Council’ is empowered under Section <\/p>\n
15 to grant permission in such form and in such manner as may be determined  <\/p>\n
by regulations.\n<\/p>\n
16.     Under Section 32 the `Council’ is empowered to make regulations not <\/p>\n
inconsistent   with   the   provisions   of  the   NCTE   Act,   1993   and   the   rules   made <\/p>\n
thereunder. Clause (f) and (h) of sub-section (2) of Section 32 empowers the  <\/p>\n
`Council’   to  frame regulations and to  lay  down  `conditions’ for the   proper <\/p>\n
functioning   of   the   institution   and   `conditions’  for   granting   recognition   under <\/p>\n
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 14 and clause (a) of sub-section (3) of <\/p>\n
Section   15   respectively,   as   evident   from   the   said   provisions   and   reproduced <\/p>\n
hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
                “32.POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS <\/p>\n
                (1) The Council may, by notification in the Official Gazette,  <\/p>\n
                make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this  <\/p>\n
                Act and the rules made thereunder, generally to carry out the  <\/p>\n
                provisions of this Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                (2)  In  particular, and  without  prejudice to  the generality  of  <\/p>\n
                the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or  <\/p>\n
                any of the following matters, namely :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                          xxx                       xxx             xxx<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  (f)   conditions   required   for   the   proper   functioning   of   the  <\/p>\n
                institution   and   conditions   for   granting   recognition   under  <\/p>\n
                clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 14;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                          xxx                       xxx             xxx<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  (h)   conditions   required   for   the   proper   conduct   of   a   new  <\/p>\n
                course   or   training   and   conditions   for   granting   permission  <\/p>\n
                under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 15;<\/p>\n
                                                                                           9<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                        xxx                     xxx             xxx”<\/p>\n
17.     In exercise of powers conferred under Section 32 the `Council’ framed  <\/p>\n
Regulations   National   Council   for   Teacher   Education   (Recognition   Norms   & <\/p>\n
Procedure)   Regulations,   2005   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   “NCTE <\/p>\n
Regulations,   2005”)   notified   by   Notification   No.F.49-42\/2005-NCTE   (N&S) <\/p>\n
dated   27th  December,   2005   published   on   13th  January,   2006.   The   NCTE <\/p>\n
Regulation,  2005  were  applicable  to  all  matters  relating  to  teacher  education <\/p>\n
programme,   covering   norms   and   standards   and   conditions   for   grant   of   such <\/p>\n
recognition.  Clause (3) and Clause (4) of Regulation 8 of NCTE Regulations,  <\/p>\n
2005 were as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                “8(3) An   institution   shall   be   permitted   to   apply   for  <\/p>\n
        enhancement  of  intake  in  a  teacher  education  course  already  <\/p>\n
        approved   after   completion   of   three   academic   sessions   of  <\/p>\n
        running the course.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                (4)  An   Institution   shall   be   permitted   to   apply   for  <\/p>\n
        enhancement   of   intake   in   Secondary   Teacher   Education  <\/p>\n
        Programme – B.Ed & B.P.Ed. Programme, if it has accredited  <\/p>\n
        itself with the National Assessment and Accreditation Council  <\/p>\n
        (NAAC) with a Letter Grade B developed by NAAC.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
18.     It was stipulated that pending finalisation of new norms and standards, <\/p>\n
the existing norms were to continue till then.\n<\/p>\n
19.     Subsequently, by notification dated 20th July, 2006 the `Council’ framed <\/p>\n
“National   Council   for   Teacher   Education   (Recognition   Norms   &   Procedure) <\/p>\n
(Amendment)   Regulations,   2006   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   “Amendment <\/p>\n
Regulations, 2006) as under:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
        “Now,  therefore,  in   exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  under  sub-<\/p>\n
      section   (2)   of   Section   32   of     the   National   Council   for   Teacher  <\/p>\n
      Education Act, 1993 (73 of 1993), the National Council for Teacher  <\/p>\n
      Education hereby makes the following regulations, namely:-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      1.        Short Title and Commencement:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n      (1)       These regulations may be called the “National Council for  <\/p>\n
      Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure)(Amendment)  <\/p>\n
      Regulations, 2006.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
2.              A
\n                  pplicability <\/p>\n
      (1)       These   regulations   shall   be   applicable   to   all   matters  <\/p>\n
      pertaining   to   grant   of   recognition\/   permission   to   conduct   a  <\/p>\n
      secondary   teacher   education   programme   in   face   to   face   mode  <\/p>\n
      leading to B.Ed. degree or equivalent.\n<\/p>\n
      (2)       They   shall   come   into   force   from   the   date   of   their  <\/p>\n
      publication in the Official Gazette.\n<\/p>\n
3.              E
\n                  xtent of Amendment <\/p>\n
      (i)       The   appendix   –   7   of   the   norms   and   standards   which   was  <\/p>\n
      notified   by   NCTE   Regulations,   2002   and   retained   in   the   NCTE  <\/p>\n
      Regulations,   2005   shall   be   replaced   by   the   appendix   –   1   to   this  <\/p>\n
      amendment and be read as part thereof.\n<\/p>\n
      Note:-    For enhancement of intake in the course where new norms  <\/p>\n
      have   been   published   after   notification   of   the   Regulations   dated  <\/p>\n
      27.12.2005, the conditions prescribed in Rule  8(3) and 8(4) of the  <\/p>\n
      said Regulation shall not be applicable.”\n<\/p>\n
It was followed by Regulations, 2007 framed by the `Council’   bringing back <\/p>\n
the condition of accreditation of institution with NAAC with the Letter Grade <\/p>\n
B as was prescribed under Regulation 8(4) of NCTE Regulations, 2005. Those <\/p>\n
institutions   who   were   granted   additional   intake   in   B.Ed   and   B.P.Ed.   teacher <\/p>\n
training courses after NCTE Regulations, 2005 i.e 13th January, 2006 were also <\/p>\n
asked to get themselves accredited with NAAC with a Letter Grade B.   Apart  <\/p>\n
                                                                                                11<\/span><\/p>\n
from   the   impugned   Regulation   8(4)   and   8(5),   Regulation   8(3)   of   NCTE <\/p>\n
Regulations, 2007 being also relevant are quoted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
               “8(3) An   institution   shall   be   permitted   to   apply   for  <\/p>\n
       enhancement   of   course   wise   intake   in   teacher   education  <\/p>\n
       courses already approved, after completion of three academic  <\/p>\n
       sessions of running the respective courses.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
               (4)  An   Institution   shall   be   permitted   to   apply   for  <\/p>\n
       enhancement   of   intake   in   Secondary   Teacher   Education  <\/p>\n
       Programme – B.Ed & B.P.Ed. Programme, if it has accredited  <\/p>\n
       itself with the National Assessment and Accreditation Council  <\/p>\n
       (NAAC) with a Letter Grade B developed by NAAC.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
               (5)  An   institution   that   has   been   granted   additional  <\/p>\n
       intake   in   B.Ed.   and   B.P.Ed.   teacher   training   courses   after  <\/p>\n
       promulgation   of   the   Regulations,   2005,i.e.,   13.1.2006   shall  <\/p>\n
       have to be accredited itself with the National Assessment and  <\/p>\n
       Accreditation Council (NAAC) with a Letter Grade B under the  <\/p>\n
       new grading system developed by NAAC before Ist April, 2010  <\/p>\n
       failing   which   the   additional   intake   granted   shall   stand  <\/p>\n
       withdrawn w.e.f. the academic session 2010-2011.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
20.    As   stated   earlier,   during   the   pendency   of   the   present   civil   appeal   the <\/p>\n
NCTE   Regulations,   2009   was   enacted   with   similar   worded   provisions   under <\/p>\n
Regulation 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5).\n<\/p>\n
21.    The   National   Assessment   and   Accreditation   Council   (NAAC)   is   an <\/p>\n
autonomous body established by the University Grants Commission (UGC) of <\/p>\n
India to assess and accredit institutions of higher education in the country. It is <\/p>\n
an outcome of the recommendations of the National Policy in Education (1986) <\/p>\n
that laid special emphasis on upholding the quality of higher education in India, <\/p>\n
as  appears  from   “Manual  of  Accreditation”  (Revised  Edition,  January,  2004) <\/p>\n
                                                                                              12<\/span><\/p>\n
published by National Board of Accreditation All India Council for Technical  <\/p>\n
Education, I.G. Sports Complex,  I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 110 002.\n<\/p>\n
22.     The system of higher education in India has expanded rapidly during the <\/p>\n
last   fifty   years   and   in   spite   of   built-in   regulatory   mechanisms   that   ensure <\/p>\n
satisfactory levels of quality in the functioning of higher education institutions, <\/p>\n
there have been criticisms that the country has permitted the mushrooming of <\/p>\n
institutions   of   higher   education   with   fancy   programme   and   substandard <\/p>\n
facilities   and   consequent   dilution   of   standards.   To   address   the   issues   of <\/p>\n
deterioration in quality, the National Policy on Education (1986) and the Plan <\/p>\n
of   Action   (POA-1992)   was   made   which   spelt   out   the   strategic   plans   for   the <\/p>\n
policies   and   advocated   the   establishment   of   an   independent   national <\/p>\n
accreditation body. Consequently, the NAAC was established in 1994 with its <\/p>\n
headquarters at Bangalore.\n<\/p>\n
23.     The   Methodology   for   the   assessment   of   a   unit,   the   NAAC   follows   a <\/p>\n
three-stage   process   which  is  a  combination   of self-study  and   peer  review,  as <\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
(1)                     The   preparation   and   submission   of   a   self-study  <\/p>\n
report by the unit of assessment.\n<\/p>\n
(2)                     The on-site visit of the peer team for validation of  <\/p>\n
the self-study report and for recommending the assessment outcome to  <\/p>\n
the NAAC.\n<\/p>\n
(3)                     The final decision by the Executive Committee of  <\/p>\n
the NAAC.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                13<\/span><\/p>\n
The self-study report validated by peers is the backbone of the whole exercise.\n<\/p>\n
Manuals have been developed to suit different units of higher education, with <\/p>\n
detailed   guidelines   on   the   preparation   of   the   self-study   report   and   the   other <\/p>\n
aspects of assessment and accreditation.\n<\/p>\n
24.     Section   12   of   NCTE   Act,   1993   deals   with   function   of   the   Council.\n<\/p>\n
Under Section 12(k) the `Council’ is required to evolve suitable performance  <\/p>\n
appraisal   system,   norms   and   mechanism   for   enforcing   accountability   on <\/p>\n
recognised institutions which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
          “12. Functions of the Council.- It shall be the duty of the Council  <\/p>\n
          to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and  <\/p>\n
          co-ordinated   development   of   teacher   education   and   for   the  <\/p>\n
          determination   and   maintenance   of   standards   for   teacher  <\/p>\n
          education and for the purposes of performing its functions under  <\/p>\n
          this Act, the Council may –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                 (k)  evolve   suitable   performance   appraisal   system,   norms  <\/p>\n
                 and mechanism for enforcing accountability on recognised  <\/p>\n
                 institutions;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
25.     In fulfilment of the provisions under Section 12(k)                  of   the   NCTE <\/p>\n
Act,   1993   i.e.   to   evolve   suitable   performance   appraisal   systems,   norms   and <\/p>\n
mechanisms   for   enforcing   accountability   on   recognised   institutions   and   for <\/p>\n
quality assurance of Teacher Education Institutions, the NAAC entered into an  <\/p>\n
“Memorandum of Understanding”(MOU) with the `Council’ for executing the <\/p>\n
process of assessment and accreditation of all Teacher Education Institutions <\/p>\n
coming under the provisions of NCTE Act, 1993. The efforts of `Council’ and <\/p>\n
                                                                                                     14<\/span><\/p>\n
NAAC are to ensure and assure the quality of Teachers Education Institutions <\/p>\n
in the country complementary to each other.  Combining the teacher education <\/p>\n
and quality assurance, the NAAC developed the methodology for assessment <\/p>\n
and   accreditation   of   Teacher   Education   Institutions   as   appears   from   the <\/p>\n
“Manual  for  Self-appraisal   of Teacher  Education   Institutions”.  The   aforesaid <\/p>\n
facts   can   be   noticed   from   the   documents   supplied   by   the   parties   which <\/p>\n
prescribe   the   methodology   of   assessment   required   to   be   followed   by   the <\/p>\n
NAAC   as   per   strategic   plans,   policies   and   memorandum   of   understanding <\/p>\n
reached between NAAC and the `Council’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
26.       Before we decide on the validity of Regulations 8(4) and 8(5), we must <\/p>\n
first  deal with the law as laid  down by this Court in different  decisions with <\/p>\n
regard to the power of a delegate of a legislature, such as the Council in this  <\/p>\n
case, to make rules and regulations.  In Hamdard Dawakhana and Another v.\n<\/p>\n
Union of India and Others [AIR 1960 SC 554], this Court held:\n<\/p>\n
        “…..Thus   when   the   delegate   is   given   the   power   of   making   rules   and  <\/p>\n
        regulations in order to fill in the details to carry out and subserve the  <\/p>\n
        purposes of the legislation the manner in which the requirements of the  <\/p>\n
        statute are to be met and the rights therein created to be enjoyed it is an  <\/p>\n
        exercise of delegated legislation…..”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Thus, a delegate of the legislature is conferred with the power to make rules <\/p>\n
and regulations to carry out the purposes of the legislation and such rules and <\/p>\n
regulations are called delegated legislation or subordinate legislation.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                           15<\/span><\/p>\n
27.   This   Court   has   also   laid   down   the   grounds   on   which   such   delegated <\/p>\n
legislation or subordinate legislation can be challenged in the Court.  In Indian  <\/p>\n
Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. and others v. Union of India and  <\/p>\n
Others<\/a> [(1985) 1 SCC 641], this Court has observed in Para 75 at page 689:\n<\/p>\n
      “A piece of subordinate legislation  does not carry the same degree of  <\/p>\n
      immunity   which   is   enjoyed   by   a   statute   passed   by   a   competent  <\/p>\n
      Legislature.    Subordinate legislation  may be questioned  on any of  the  <\/p>\n
      grounds on which plenary legislation is questioned.  In addition, it may  <\/p>\n
      also be questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the statute  <\/p>\n
      under which it is made.  It may further be questioned on the ground that  <\/p>\n
      it   is   contrary   to   some   other   statute.     That   is   because   subordinate  <\/p>\n
      legislation must yield to plenary legislation. It may also be questioned  <\/p>\n
      on the ground that it is unreasonable, unreasonable not in the sense of  <\/p>\n
      not   being   reasonable,   but   in   the   sense   that   it   is   manifestly  <\/p>\n
      arbitrary……”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
    28.      Again in  Clariant International Ltd. and Another v. Securities &  <\/p>\n
             Exchange Board of India<\/a> [(2004) 8 SCC 524], this Court held in <\/p>\n
             Para 63 at page 547:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                 “When   any   criterion   is   fixed   by   a   statute   or   by   a   policy,   an  <\/p>\n
                 attempt   should  be  made by  the  authority   making  the  delegated  <\/p>\n
                 legislation   to   follow   the   policy   formulation   broadly   and  <\/p>\n
                 substantially and in conformity therewith.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    29.      The grounds on which the validity of a delegated legislation can be <\/p>\n
             challenged have also been discussed at length in  Vasu Dev Singh  <\/p>\n
             and Others v. Union of India and others<\/a> [(2006) 12 SCC 753]  in <\/p>\n
             which the Court has reiterated the aforesaid law.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    30.      The aforesaid law laid down by the Court on the grounds of judicial  <\/p>\n
             review of delegated legislation or subordinate legislation will have <\/p>\n
                                                                                                  16<\/span><\/p>\n
             to be borne in mind while deciding the validity of Regulation 8(4) <\/p>\n
             made by the Council.   In other words, if the Regulation 8(4) is in <\/p>\n
             broad conformity with the objects and policy of the Act and is not in <\/p>\n
             conflict   with   any   statutory   or   constitutional   provisions,   the <\/p>\n
             regulation made by the delegate, namely, the Council, will have to  <\/p>\n
             be held to be valid.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
31.     We   find   that   the   NCTE   Act,   1993   was   enacted   with   the   object   (i)   to  <\/p>\n
achieve planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system <\/p>\n
throughout   the   country   and   (ii)   for   laying   down   the   proper   maintenance   of <\/p>\n
norms and standards in the teacher education system; the `Council’ has been <\/p>\n
empowered by the parent Act to regulate development of     teacher education,  <\/p>\n
proper maintenance of norms and the standards.\n<\/p>\n
        Section 12(k) empowers the `Council’ to maintain teacher education, its <\/p>\n
performance   appraisal   system   and   to   lay   down   norms   and   mechanism   for <\/p>\n
enforcing accountability on recognised institutions.\n<\/p>\n
        Under Section 15 the `Council’ can determine as to which institution be <\/p>\n
allowed   to   offer   new   course   or   training   in   teacher   education;   for   which   the <\/p>\n
`Council’   is   empowered   under   Section   32(2)(h)   to   prescribe   `condition’   for <\/p>\n
grant of such permission and recognition.\n<\/p>\n
32.     The `Council’ is also empowered to cause inspection of any institution <\/p>\n
through any person under Section 13 of the NCTE Act, 1993.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                  17<\/span><\/p>\n
33.     Combined   reading   of   Section   12(k),   Section   15   and   Section   32(2)(h), <\/p>\n
makes it clear that the `Council’ is empowered to frame a Regulation laying <\/p>\n
down `conditions’ for proper conduct of a new course or training under clause  <\/p>\n
(a) of sub-section (3) of Section 15.\n<\/p>\n
34.     What will be the `condition’ to be laid down for starting a new course or <\/p>\n
training or for increase in the intake of students can be determined only by the <\/p>\n
`Council’   in   view   of   clause   (h)   of   sub-section   (2)   of   Section   32.     It   can <\/p>\n
prescribe the such `condition’, as it deems fit and proper with only rider that <\/p>\n
such `condition’ should not be against any of the provisions of the NCTE Act,  <\/p>\n
1993 or Rules framed thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
        For   example   the   `Council’   may   prescribe   a   condition   that   the <\/p>\n
qualification of a teacher should  be a degree of a particular subject obtained <\/p>\n
from a recognised University, to grant recognition to start a new course. If such <\/p>\n
condition   is   prescribed   it   will   not   amount   to   delegation   of   its   power   to   an <\/p>\n
University to grant such degree.\n<\/p>\n
        In   the   case   in   hand   under   Regulation   8(4)   the   `Council’   having <\/p>\n
prescribed a `condition’ for recognition that an institution accredited by NAAC <\/p>\n
with   a   Letter   Grade   B   is   entitled   to   apply   for   enhancement   of   intake   in  <\/p>\n
Secondary Teacher Education Programme-B.Ed. &B.P.Ed., it can not be held <\/p>\n
to   be   sub-delegation   of   power,   as   contended   by   the   appellants.   The   first <\/p>\n
question is, thus answered in negative against the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                  18<\/span><\/p>\n
35.    In the case of   State Bank’s Staff Union (Madras Circle) vs. Union of  <\/p>\n
India and others<\/a>  reported in  (2005) 7 SCC 584,  Supreme Court noticed and <\/p>\n
defined the expression “retrospective” as under:\n<\/p>\n
        “19. Every   sovereign   legislature   possesses   the   right   to   make  <\/p>\n
        retrospective   legislation.   The   power   to   make   laws   includes   the  <\/p>\n
        power to give it retrospective effect.  Craies on Statute Law  (7th  <\/p>\n
        Edn.)   at   p.   387   defines   retrospective   statutes   in   the   following  <\/p>\n
        words:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                    “A   statute   is   to   be   deemed   to   be   retrospective,   which  <\/p>\n
              takes   away   or   impairs   any   vested   right   acquired   under  <\/p>\n
              existing   laws,   or   creates   a   new   obligation,   or   imposes   a  <\/p>\n
              new   duty,   or   attaches   a   new   disability   in   respect   to  <\/p>\n
              transactions or considerations already past.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
            20.     Judicial   Dictionary         (13th   Edn.)   by   K.J.   Aiyar,  <\/p>\n
        Butterworth,  p.  857,  states  that  the  word  “retrospective” when  <\/p>\n
        used with reference to an enactment may mean (i) affecting an  <\/p>\n
        existing   contract;   or   (ii)   reopening   up   of   past,   closed   and  <\/p>\n
        completed   transaction;   or   (iii)   affecting   accrued   rights   and  <\/p>\n
        remedies;   or   (iv)   affecting   procedure.  Words   and   Phrases,  <\/p>\n
        Permanent Edn., Vol. 37-A, pp. 224-25, defines a “retrospective  <\/p>\n
        or retroactive law” as one which takes away or impairs vested  <\/p>\n
        or accrued rights acquired under existing laws. A retroactive law  <\/p>\n
        takes   away   or   impairs   vested   rights   acquired   under   existing  <\/p>\n
        laws,   or   creates   a   new   obligation,   imposes   a   new   duty,   or  <\/p>\n
        attaches   a   new   disability,   in   respect   to   transactions   or  <\/p>\n
        considerations already past.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
            21.  In  Advanced   Law   Lexicon  by   P.   Ramanath   Aiyar   (3rd  <\/p>\n
        Edn.,   2005)   the   expressions   “retroactive”   and   “retrospective”  <\/p>\n
        have been defined as follows at p. 4124, Vol. 4:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                “Retroactive.–Acting   backward;   affecting   what   is   past.  <\/p>\n
            (Of   a   statute,   ruling,   etc.)   extending   in   scope   or   effect   to  <\/p>\n
            matters   that   have   occurred   in   the   past.   —   Also   termed  <\/p>\n
            retrospective. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edn., 1999)<\/p>\n
                `   “Retroactivity”   is   a   term   often   used   by   lawyers   but  <\/p>\n
            rarely   defined.   On   analysis   it   soon   becomes   apparent,  <\/p>\n
                                                                                                        19<\/span><\/p>\n
              moreover,   that   it   is   used   to   cover   at   least   two   distinct  <\/p>\n
              concepts. The first, which may be called “true retroactivity”,  <\/p>\n
              consists in the application of a new rule of law to an act or  <\/p>\n
              transaction   which   was   completed   before   the   rule   was  <\/p>\n
              promulgated. The second concept, which will be referred to  <\/p>\n
              as   “quasi-retroactivity”,   occurs   when   a   new   rule   of   law   is  <\/p>\n
              applied   to   an   act   or   transaction   in   the   process   of  <\/p>\n
              completion….   The   foundation   of   these   concepts   is   the  <\/p>\n
              distinction   between   completed   and   pending   transactions….’  <\/p>\n
              T.C.  Hartley,  Foundations  of  European  Community  Law,  p.  <\/p>\n
              129 (1981).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         *         *        *<\/p>\n
                  Retrospective.–Looking   back;   contemplating   what   is  <\/p>\n
              past.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Having operation from a past time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  `Retrospective’   is   somewhat   ambiguous   and   that   good  <\/p>\n
              deal of confusion has been caused by the fact that it is used in  <\/p>\n
              more senses than one. In general, however, the courts regard  <\/p>\n
              as retrospective any statute which operates on cases or facts  <\/p>\n
              coming into existence before its commencement in the sense  <\/p>\n
              that   it   affects,   even   if   for   the   future   only,   the   character   or  <\/p>\n
              consequences   of   transactions   previously   entered   into   or   of  <\/p>\n
              other past conduct. Thus, a statute is not retrospective merely  <\/p>\n
              because   it   affects   existing   rights;   nor   is   it   retrospective  <\/p>\n
              merely because a part of the requisite for its action is drawn  <\/p>\n
              from a time antecedent to its passing.” (Vol. 44,  Halsbury’s  <\/p>\n
              Laws of England, 4th Edn., p. 570, para 921.)”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        Therefore, it is to be seen as to whether Regulation 8(5) takes away any  <\/p>\n
right of the appellants or impairs any vested right acquired by appellants under <\/p>\n
the existing law or has created any new obligation in their part.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
36.     Regulations   8(3)   and   8(4)   were   already   in   vogue   since   13th  January, <\/p>\n
2006   when   Regulations   dated   27th  December,   2005   came   into   effect.   As   per <\/p>\n
Regulation 8(3) only after three academic sessions an institution was eligible to <\/p>\n
apply  for enhancement of intake of students in the course. Under Regulation <\/p>\n
8(4) only such institution which had accredited itself with the NAAC with a  <\/p>\n
                                                                                                    20<\/span><\/p>\n
Letter Grade B+ was entitled to apply for enhancement of intake of students in  <\/p>\n
the Secondary Teacher Education Programme, B.Ed. and B.P.Ed.\n<\/p>\n
37.    “The   norms   and   standards”   were     prescribed   under   Regulation   8   of <\/p>\n
Regulation 2002 as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                   “Norms and Standards for various teacher education programmes<\/p>\n
(i)                       The Norms  and Standards for various teacher  education courses  <\/p>\n
are given in the Appendices 3 to 14 as indicated below which an institution offering  <\/p>\n
the said course is required to comply with.\n<\/p>\n
                   (i)         Norms   and   Standards   for   Pro   School          Appendix-3<\/p>\n
                               Teacher Education Programme<\/p>\n
                   (ii)        Norms and Standards for Nursery Teacher               Appendix-4<\/p>\n
                               Education Programme<\/p>\n
                   (iii)       Norms   and   Standards   for   Elementary            Appendix-5<\/p>\n
                               Teacher Education Programme<\/p>\n
                   (iv)        Norms   and   Standards   for   Bachelor   of         Appendix-6<\/p>\n
                               Elementary Education (B.El.Ed)<\/p>\n
                   (v)         Norms   and   Standards   for   Secondary             Appendix-7<\/p>\n
                               Teacher Education Programme<\/p>\n
                   (vi)        Norms   and   Standards   for   Master   of           Appendix-8<\/p>\n
                               Education (M.Ed.) Programme<\/p>\n
                   (vii)       Norms   and   Standards   for   Master   of           Appendix-9<\/p>\n
                               Education (M.Ed.) Programme (Part time)<\/p>\n
                   (viii)      Norms   and   Standards   for   Certificate   in      Appendix-10<\/p>\n
                               Physical Education (C.P.Ed.) Programme<\/p>\n
                   (ix)        Norms   and   Standards   for   Bachelor   of         Appendix-11<\/p>\n
                               Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) Programme<\/p>\n
                   (x)         Norms   and   Standards   for   Master   of           Appendix-12<\/p>\n
                               Physical Education (M.P.Ed.) Programme<\/p>\n
                   (xi)        Norms and Standards for B.Ed. (Open and               Appendix-13<\/p>\n
                               Distance Learning System)<\/p>\n
                   (xii)       Norms and Standards for M.Ed. (Open and               Appendix-14<\/p>\n
                               Distance Learning System)<\/p>\n
           (ii)           The norms and standards herein   notified  are minimum  and  <\/p>\n
                          essential.    The institution may strengthen further the physical  <\/p>\n
                          and instructional infrastructure.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                 21<\/span><\/p>\n
The aforesaid “norms and standards” were notified by NCTE Regulations 2002 <\/p>\n
and   retained   in   the   NCTE   Regulations,   2005.     Appendix-7   was   related   to <\/p>\n
“norms and standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme”.\n<\/p>\n
        The norms related to Secondary Teacher Education Programme leading <\/p>\n
to B.Ed. Degree (face-to-face) were in process of change.  After finalization of <\/p>\n
such  norms  relating  to  revision  of Secondary   Teacher Education  Programme <\/p>\n
leading   to   B.Ed.   Degree   Course   (face-to-face)   the   NCTE   enacted   National <\/p>\n
Council   for   Teacher   Education   (Recognition   Norms   and   Procedure) <\/p>\n
(Amendment)   Regulations,   2006.   By   amended   Regulation   3   the   “norms   and <\/p>\n
standards”, as was stipulated in Appendix-7 was replaced by Appendix-1 of the <\/p>\n
Amended   Regulations,   2006.   The   said   Appendix-1   was   made   a   part   of   the <\/p>\n
main Regulations, 2005 dated 27th December, 2005. By a `Note’ below the said <\/p>\n
amended   Regulation   3   it   was   clarified   that   conditions   prescribed   under <\/p>\n
Regulation   8(3)   and   8(4)   shall   not   be   applicable   in   certain   cases,   as   shown <\/p>\n
hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
                 “3.     Extent of Amendment<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 (i).    The appendix  – 7 of the  norms  and standards  which  was  <\/p>\n
            notified   by   NCTE   Regulation,   2002   and   retained   in   the   NCTE  <\/p>\n
            Regulations,   2005   shall   be   replaced   by   the   appendix-1   to   this  <\/p>\n
            amendment and be read as  part thereof.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
            Note:- For enhancement of intake in the course where new norms  <\/p>\n
            have   been   published   after   notification   of   the   Regulations   dated  <\/p>\n
            27.12.2005, the conditions prescribed in Rule 8(3) and 8(4) of the  <\/p>\n
            said Regulation shall not be applicable.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
38.     Thereby,   the   Regulations   8(3)   and   8(4)   remained   in   force   for   all <\/p>\n
Teachers Education Courses, e.g.  Elementary Teachers Education Programme, <\/p>\n
                                                                                                22<\/span><\/p>\n
Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.), Standard for Secondary Teacher <\/p>\n
Education   Programme,   Master   of   Education   (M.Ed.)   Programme   etc.,   even <\/p>\n
after amended Regulations 2006, but with a rider that in case new norms are <\/p>\n
published   for   any   such   Course   after   notification   of   Regulations   dated   27th <\/p>\n
December,   2005,   the   conditions   prescribed   in   Rule   8(3)   and   8(4)   of   the <\/p>\n
Regulations, 2005 dated 27th  December, 2005 shall not be applicable for such <\/p>\n
course.\n<\/p>\n
39.     Subsequently,   when   Regulations   2007   were   enacted,   the   Regulations <\/p>\n
8(3)   and   8(4)   of   Regulations   2005   were   retained.   In   the   aforesaid <\/p>\n
circumstances   by   Regulation   8(5)   it   was   clarified   that   if   any   institution   has <\/p>\n
been granted additional intake in B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. teachers training courses <\/p>\n
after enactment of Regulations 2005 i.e. 13th January, 2006, such institution is <\/p>\n
required to be accredited itself with NAAC with a Letter Grade B.\n<\/p>\n
        It is needless to say that Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) of Regulations 2005 <\/p>\n
dated  27th  December,  2005   having   retained,  it  was   always  open  to   NCTE  to <\/p>\n
remind the institutions that they were required to follow Regulations 8(3) and <\/p>\n
8(4), if were allowed additional intake after 13th January, 2006. For the reason <\/p>\n
aforesaid the Regulation  8(5) cannot be held to be retrospective. The second <\/p>\n
question is, thereby, answered in negative against the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
40.     Further, as plain reading of the Regulations 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5) makes it <\/p>\n
clear that right of exemption, if any, accrued to an institution in view of `Note’  <\/p>\n
                                                                                               23<\/span><\/p>\n
below  Regulation  3   of  amended  Regulations   2006,   has  not   been   taken   away <\/p>\n
nor   impaired   any   vested   right   acquired   by   any   institution   and     as   no   new  <\/p>\n
obligation on the part of any institution has been created, they being governed <\/p>\n
by   Regulations   8(3)   and   8(4)   since   13th  January,   2006,   the   Regulation   8(5) <\/p>\n
cannot be held to be retrospective.  The Regulations 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5) having  <\/p>\n
nexus   with   maintenance   of   standards   of   teacher   education   and   to   make <\/p>\n
qualitative improvement in the system of teacher education by phasing out sub-\n<\/p>\n
standard   teaching,   the   validity   of   Regulation   8(4)   and   8(5)   cannot   be  <\/p>\n
questioned. In absence of any merit, the appeal is dismissed but there shall be  <\/p>\n
no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                       ……………………………………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                            ( R. V. RAVEENDRAN )<\/p>\n
                                        ………………………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                              ( A.K. PATNAIK)<\/p>\n
                                       ……………………………………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                         ( SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)<\/p>\n
NEW DELHI,<\/p>\n
OCTOBER  12, 2011.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Swami Vivekanand College Of Edu.& … vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 October, 2011 Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5961 OF 2010 SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ORS. … APPELLANTS Versus […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14125","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSwami Vivekanand College Of Edu.& ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 October, 2011 - 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\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Swami Vivekanand College Of Edu.& ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-14T22:51:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Swami Vivekanand College Of Edu.& … vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-14T22:51:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":5117,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Swami Vivekanand College Of Edu.& ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-14T22:51:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Swami Vivekanand College Of Edu.& … vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Swami Vivekanand College Of Edu.& ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 October, 2011 - 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\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Swami Vivekanand College Of Edu.& ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-14T22:51:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Swami Vivekanand College Of Edu.& … vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-14T22:51:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011"},"wordCount":5117,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011","name":"Swami Vivekanand College Of Edu.& ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-14T22:51:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swami-vivekanand-college-of-edu-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Swami Vivekanand College Of Edu.& … vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 October, 2011"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/14125","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=14125"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14125\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14125"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14125"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14125"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}