LexNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND OTHERS versus SHRI SHYAM SHIKSHA PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 291 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND A ·OTHERS v. SHRI SHYAM SHIKSHA PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos.1125-1128 of 2011) B JANUARY 31, 2011 [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, C Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 (as amended by Notification dated 1.7.2008): Regulation 5, clause (4) and (5) - Cut off dates for submission of application to Regional Committee, processing thereof and communication of the final decision on the issue of recognition - Validity of - Held: D The cut off dates are neither arbitrary/irrational nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Notification F.No.48-31(1)12008/NCTEIN&S dated 1. 7.2008. National council for Teacher Education Act, 1993: s. 14 - Role of State Government in granting recognition to the institution offering course in teacher training - Requirement E of recommendation/suggestion by State Government/UT Administration - Held: Provisions contained in s. 14 and the Regulations framed for grant of recognition including the F requirement of recommendation of the State Government! Union Territory Administration are mandatory - Consultation with the State Government/UT Administration and consideration of the recommendations! suggestions made by them are of considerableimportance - State Government/UT G Administration sanctions· the posts keeping in view the requirement of trained teachers and budgetary provisions made for that purpose - By incorporating the provision for 291 H i. 292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 2 S.C.R. A sending the applications to the State Government/UT Administration and consideration of the recommendations/ suggestions, if any made by them, the Council made an attempt to ensure that as a result of grant of recognition to unlimited number of institutions to start B. Ed. and like B courses, candidates far in excess of the requirement of trained teachers do not become available - The Council is directed to ensure that in future no institution is granted recognition unless it fulfils the conditions laid down in the Act and the Regulations and the time schedule fixed for processing the c application by the Regional Committees and communication of the decision on the issue of recognition is strictly adhered to - National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007. 0 The private respondents submitted their applications on 28.12.2007, 31.3.2008, 10.4.2008 and 17 .4.2008 respectively for grant of recognition for starting B.Ed. course for the academic year 2008-2009. They also applied to the State Government for grant of 'no objection certificates'. After considering their applications, the E Northern Regional Committee of the Council informed the private respondents about the deficiencies in their applications. After removal of the deficiencies, the premises of the private respondents were inspected by the teams constituted by the Northern Regional F Committee. The inspection reports were considered in the meeting of the Committee held on 21.9.2008 but recognition was not granted to them on the ground that the cut off date specified in the regulations was already over. G Aggrieved, the private respondents filed writ petitions alleging that they were discriminated vis-a-vis other applicants and, in this manner, their right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution was H violated. By an Interim order dated 24.10.2008, the High NATIONAL COUNCIL .FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 293 . S.S .. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN Court.directed that the a:p·plications made· by the. private A respo'ndents for grant of. recognition should be considered by the Committee. By another interim order dated 27 .11.2008,. the High Court directed the Council to issue approval letters '!nd allot students to the private respondents. The High Court finatly held that the cut off B date i.e. 31.8.2008 fixed by notification dated 1.7.2008 was discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and dismissed the writ petitions. The instant appeals were filed challenging the order of the High Cour;t. ,... ,., Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD :' 1.1. Article 14 ofthe· Constitution of India forbids class legislation ·but permits reasonable classification provided that itis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.