MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 13 S.C.R. 810 · Decided: 13-12-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 810 
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 276 of 2012) 
DECEMBER 13, 2012. 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Education/Educational Institutions - Professional 
educational institutions - Affiliation - Cut off date for affiliation 
C fixed by Supreme Court in a judgment - Universities declining 
to grant affiliation - Challenged by the institutions before High 
Court as well as Supreme Cow1 by filing writ petitions - High 
Court dismissed Writ Petitions on the ground that it had no 
jurisdiction to extend the cut-off date provided in the judgment 
o of Supreme Court - Held: The authorities were not wrong in 
rejecting the applications for affiliation in view of the cut-off 
date as fixed by Supreme Court - Grant of recognition by 
NCTE under NCTE Act is the condition precedent for grant 
of affiliation by the examining body/University - The 
E concerned Department of the State or the affiliating body can 
lay down guideline or policy only in conformity with the 
directions issued by NCTE - The NCTE Act being the law 
enacted by centre would be supreme and the state law must 
give way in favour of central law to the extent of repugnancy -
F The conditions imposed by NCTE while granting recognition, 
shall prevail and cannot be altered, re-examined or infringed 
under the garb of state law - Operation of the University Act 
would be enforceable in case of technical colleges only when 
the condition prescribed by the University for grant and 
G continuation of affiliation is in conformity with the norms and 
guidelines prescribed by NCTE -Once the relevant Schedules 
are prescribed under Regulations or judge-made law, no one 
is entitled to carve out exceptions to the prescribed Schedules 
- The defaulting body would be liable for the proceedings for 
H 
810 
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 
811 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
contempt of courts and for departmental disciplinary action -
A 
There is some over-lapping and contradiction between the 
dates and period stated under the Regulations inter se and 
even with reference to judgments of the Court - In order to 
avoid the ambiguity and confusion, fresh schedule is 
prescribed, in relation to recognition and affiliation- Contempt 
B 
of Courts Act, 1971 - National Council for Teachers Education 
Act, 1993 - ss. 14(1)(a) and 16 - NCTE (Form of application 
for recognition, the time limit of submissions of application, 
determination of norms and standards for recognition of 
teacher education programmes and permission to start new c 
course or training) Regulations, 2002 - National Council for 
Teachers Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) 
Regulations, 2005 - National Council for Teacher Education 
(Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009 -
Constitution of India, 1950 - VII Schedule - List I Entry 66 and 0 
List /II Entry 25. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 254, VII Schedule, List I 
and List Ill - Where the field is covered by the Parliamentary 
Law in terms of List I and List Ill, subject to the exceptions 
stated in Art. 254, the law made by the State Legislature 
E 
would, to the extent of repugnancy would be void - The test of 
repugnancylconflict is not restricted to the obedience of one 
resulting in disobedience of other but even where result of one 
would be in conflict with the other .. 
F 
The Supreme Court, in the case of *College of 
Professional Education and Ors. vs. State of Uttar 
Pradesh, recorded that for the academic year 2012-13 
and subsequent academic years, the educational 
institutions and the State Government arrived at a broad 
G 
consensus regarding the procedure and terms and 
conditions of admission, recognition and affiliation. A 
Schedule for admission was provided by the Court for 
the academic year 2012-13. The court fixed a cut-off date 
for affiliation. The colleges which were affiliated upto 
H 
812 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 
A 7.7.2011 alone were permitted to participate in the 
counseling for the academic year 2011-12. For the next 
consecutive academic years, the colleges which were 
permitted to participate in the counseling, were the ones 
which received affiliation on or before 10th May of that 
B year. 
Some Colleges of the State, which did not receive 
affiliation from the Universities, filed writ petitions before 
High Court, challenging the order of the Universities 
declining to grant affiliation. 

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