NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR. versus COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 1065 · Decided: 07-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

NA TI ON AL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ORS. 
MARCH 7, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Education/Educational institutions: 
National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993-Sections 14 and 
32-NCTE (Form of application for recognition, the time limit of submission C 
of application, determination of norms and standards for recognition of teacher 
education programmes and permission to start new course or training) 
Regulations, 2002-Appendix 1-B and 1-C-Recognition for B.Ed. Course for 
a particular academic year-Application for grant of recognition by Institution 
submitted on the last date-Deficiency found in form on non-furnishing of D 
essential documents rectified, however, refusal to accord recognition-Grant 
of recognition by High Court-Correctness of-Held: Even if the requirements 
of the Regulations are directory in nature, substantial compliance thereof was 
necessary-It was obligatory on part of the institution to file an application 
complete in all respects-A/I the requirements were capable of being complied 
with-Thus, High Court erred in granting recognition, as such set aside. 
E 
First respondent-Institution filed an application before the appellant-
National Council for Teacher Education, for grant of recognition for B.Ed. 
course for academic year 2005-2006 on being granted 'No Objection 
Certificate' from State Government on 24.12.04. Application was received F 
in its office on 31.12.04, which was the last date for submission of 
application. First respondent-Institution failed to furnish certain essential 
documents. Appellant informed the first respondent about the deficiencies 
on 27.4.05 which were later rectified. However, the appellant refused to 
accord recognition to the first respondent-Institution for the academic year 
2005-2006. Respondent filed a writ petition. High Court held that since G 
the Regulations did not postulate any time limit for filing an application 
for grant of recognition, it issued direction in favour of first respondent. 
Hence, the present appeal. 
Appellant- National Council for Teacher Education contended that 
10~ 
H 
1066 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A the High Court erred in holding that the provisions of the said Regulations 
are directory in nature; that as the cut-off date is fixed for filing such 
application for grant of recognition for each academic year, no application 
thereafter could have been entertained nor the first respondent could have 
shown any indulgence to supply the essential documents more than six 
months after the cut-off date; that as the appellant-Council is required to 
B consider many applications for grant of recognition for the course and 
the same being applicable to all the institutions situated throughout the 
country, the High Court should not have issued the directions in favour 
of the first respondent-Institution. 
C 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Regulations could be framed by the appellant under Sub-
section (1) of Section 32 read with Section 14 of the National Council for 
Teacher Education Act, 1993. The NCTE (Form of application for 
recognition, the time limit of submission of application, determination of 
D norms and standards for recognition of teacher education programmes 
and permission to start new course or training) Regulations, 2002', having 
been validly framed by the Council, were required to be complied with. 
The Council has a statutory duty to perform. It is an autonomous body. 
Its jurisdiction extend to the entire territory of India except the State of 
Jammu and Kashmir and as such, it is indisputably required to pro~ess a 
E large number of applications received by it from various institutions situate 
throughout the country. Six month's time, in view of the statutory scheme, 
is necessary for processing the papers, inspection of the institution and to 
take a decision on the basis of report submitted pursuant thereto as to 
whether the institution in question, having regard to Entry 66 of List II 
F of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, has the requisite 
infrastructural facilities for imparting education to the teachers. The 
infrustructural facilities required to be provided must be commensurate 
with the requirements stated in the said form itself. ( 1072-D-H; 1073-D( 
1.2. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that even if the provisions 
G of the Regulations are directory in nature, substantia

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