KRISHNASAMY REDDIAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST versus MEMBER SECY., NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 937 · Decided: 16-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
;, 
KRISHNASAMY REDDIAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST 
v. 
MEMBER SECY., NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS 
EDUCATION AND ANR. 
MARCH 16, 2005 
[RUMA PAL AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Education: 
A 
B 
National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993-Sections 14, 15 C 
. and 32-National Council for Teacher Education (Form of Application for 
recognition, the time limit of submission of application, Determination of 
norms and standards for recognition of teacher education programmes and 
permission to start new course or training) Regulations, 2002-Regulation , 
6-Appellant-Trust applied for recognition to offer training in teacher education D 
for the academic year 2004-05 without the requisite NOC from the State 
Government-The NOC was belatedly submitted after the cut-off date for · 
submission of the app/ication-NCTE granted recognition, but for the ensuing 
academic year-Validity of-Held: On facts, NCTE cannot be said to have 
acted i//ega//y, arbitrarily or unreasonably-Hence cannot be interfered with 
under Article l 4 of the Constitution, even if an order is passed in favour of · E 
any other institution in similar circumstances-Constitution of India, 1950-
Article 14. 
Appellant filed application before respondent-NCTE oa 30th 
December, 2003 for recognition to offer training in teacher education for 
the academic year 2004-05. The application was submitted without the F 
requisite NOC from the State Government. Appellant had applied for the 
NOC on October 31, 2003 and was granted the same on January 30, 2004. 
It submitted the NOC to NCTE on 2nd February, 2004, pursuant whereto 
NCTE granted recognition, but imposed a condition that it would be 
operative for the ensuing academic year 2005-06 since the Appellant had G 
submitted the NOC belatedly, i.e. after 31st December, 2003, the cut-off 
date for submission of applications, and hence, the application was 
incomplete as on 31st December, 2003. 
Single Judge of High Court allowed the writ petition filed by 
937 
II 
938 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 2 S.C.R. 
A appellant and directed the respondent to consider the claim of the 
appellant 'positively' and 'permit' the students in the academic year 2004-
05. But Division Bench set aside the order of Single Judge and held that 
since appellant and other institutions had not submitted their applications 
within time and there was delay on their part in making such applications, 
B the condition imposed by respondent and the recognition granted for 
academic year 2005-06 could not be said to be illegal, contrary to law or 
otherwise unlawful. Hence, the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that it had filed the application within the time 
prescribed; that it had applied to the State Government for grant of NOC, 
C but there was delay on the part of the State Government in taking a 
decision one way or the other; and that once the NOC was granted, 
immediately thereafter action was taken by the appellant in moving the 
NCTE. 
Appellant further contended that in a similar situation, an order was 
D ·passed by NCTE in favour of one Sabari Education Society, where also, 
NCTE granted recognition from 2005-06 but a Writ Petition against the 
said condition was allowed and the institution was granted recognition 
from 2004-05; that an appeal against the said crder was dismissed by the 
Division Bench; that even an SLP has been dismissed by this Court and 
that the case of the appellant being similar to Sabari Education Society, 
E appellant deserved similar treatment. 
F 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. The orders passed by Division Bench of the High Court 
are in consonance with law and no interference is called for. [944-C] 
2. The respondents are right in submitting that ~here was delay on 
the part of the appellants. The applications were submitted without NOC 
from the St~te Government. The NOC was applied belatedly. The ~tate 
Government could not be blamed for not taking a decision on ·the 
applications of the appellants as under Regulation 6 as amended in 2003, 
G it was required to dispose of such applications within six months of the 
last date of receipt of applications. Eyen prior to the amended Regulation 
6, it was expected to take decision within "reasonable time" (four months) 
as held in St. Johns Teacher Training Institute. In that case, this Court stated 
that the State Government must take a decision on application by an 
institution for grant of NOC within a "reasonable time", and that if the 
H St

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.