MAHARISHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY versus M.L.R. SARASWATHI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 271 · Decided: 13-09-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-, 
MAHARISHI DAY ANAND UNIVERSITY 
A 
v. 
M.L.R. SARAS WA THI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
B 
Education: 
National Council of Teacher Education Act, 1993-Sections 14 and 15. c 
Appointment of additional lecturers on adhoc basis by the College and 
admission of additional students in accordance with the prescribed teacher-
student ratio with the sanction of the National Council of Teacher Education 
but without the knowledge of the University and Director of Higher Education 
which is in violation of the University Statutes-University refusing permission 
for admission of additional students-Whether proper and correct-Held, the D 
appointment of teachers and the admission of students thereof is illegal-
Service Law. 
Withholding of results of existing additional students by the University-
Justification of-Held, in the peculiar facts of the case and in view of the E 
circumstances, the results be released. 
As per the general instructions issued by the National Council of 
Teacher Education (NCTE), established under the National Council of Teacher 
Education Act, 1993, the teacher-student ratio for a college ought to be 1:10. 
The respondent-college, in accordance with the ratio, had originally 70 F 
students and 7 regular lecturers. The College unilaterally appointed 8 
lecturers on adhoc basis with the sanction of the NCTE but without the 
participation of the University and Director of Higher Education, which is 
in complete violation of the University statutes. On the basis of the 
appointment, 80 additional students were admitted to the College as per the 
aforesaid ratio. For the next session, the College, as per the procedure G 
prescribed in University statutes, approached the University to permit 
admission of 150 students (i.e. 70 plus 80). Since the appointment of the 
lecturerSJVas done without the knowledge of the University, it refused to 
grant permission for admission of extra students for the next session. It also 
withheld t~e examination results of the extra 80 students. The respondent- H 
271 
272 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A college filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. The High Court directed 
the University to permit admission for the extra students as the College had 
already got the sanction from the NCTE. The High Court also directed the 
College to regularise the appointment of the adhoc lecturers. Hence the 
appeal by the Universi,ty. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court was in error in allowing the College to 
increase the admission of 80 students by assuming that the adhoc selection 
of teachers was sufficient to permit increase of students. The selection of 
C these adhoc lecturers-in addition to the existing regular staff-was done, 
without proper advertisement, without the candidates sending copies of 
application to the University, and without the participation of the nominees 
of the University and the Director of Higher Education. No list of such 
selected staff was sent by the College to the University as required. It was 
a selection in total violation of the procedure. The University was kept in 
D dark till after permission was obtained from the NCTE for admission of 
extra 80 students. The College reversed the entire process by first going to 
the NCTE and then to the University. The selection of the adhoc lecturers 
cannot enable the College to compel the University to permit admission of 
these 80 students. (280-A-CJ 
E 
1.2. The NCTE ought to have verified from the University whether the 
University had received applications of the candidates who had applied for 
selection, whether a date for interview was fixed in consultation with the 
University and whether the nominee of the University or the Director of 
Higher Education participated in the selection and whether the College had 
F informed the University after the selection. Apart from this the question 
regarding the satisfaction of the other infrastructural facilities also appears 
to have eluded the attention of the NCTE. The NCTE allowed itself to be 
misled by the College. [280-D-E) 
1.3. The selection of adhoc teachers was illegal and the College could 
G not seek extra students on basis of extra adhoc teachers and without 
satisfying the norms relating to the other infrastructural facilities too. The 
High Court's direction is contrary to the guidelines of the NCTE and the 
procedure laid down in Univer

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