NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. & ANR. versus VAISHNAV INST. OF TECH. & MGT.

Citation: [2012] 2 S.C.R. 856 · Decided: 12-04-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 856 
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. & ANR. 
v. 
VAISHNAV INST. OF TECH. & MGT. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3505 of 2012) 
APRIL 12, 2012 
[R.M. LODHA AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - ss. 
13 and 17 - Action uls. 17 - Whether can be taken directly 
C or by following the route of inspection u/s. 13 - Held: If 
satisfaction uls. 17 can be arrived at without inspection, route 
of inspection u/s. 13 is not required to be followed - But where 
the competent authority forms the opinion that inspection is 
necessary, then the inspection and follow-up action uls. 13 is 
D required ...,.. National Council for Teacher Education Rules, 
1997 - r. 8. 
National Council for Teacher Education, taking action 
uls. 17 of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 
E 1993, derecognized various institutions. Applications 
were filed before Madhya Pradesh High Court as well as 
Delhi High Court challenging the derecognition. The 
question for consideration before the High Courts was 
where an action is contemplated against recognised 
institution uls. 17(1) by the Regional Committee and 
F inspection of such recognised institution is found 
necessary, whether such inspection must proceed u/s. 
13 of the Act or the Regional Committee is empowered 
to carry out inspection independent of Section 13. 
Madhya Pradesh High Court took the view that it is 
G imperative on the part of the Council to issue notice uls. 
13 to the recognised institution and, if on inspection u/s. 
13, contraventions are found, then a notice needs to be 
given by the Council to the concerned recognised 
institution pointing out to it the deficiencies noticed 
H 
856 
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. & ANR. v. 
857 
VAISHNAV INST. OF TECH. & MGT. 
during inspection and, if the institution fails to remove 
A 
the deficiencies so pointed out, the action u/s. 17 may be 
taken. The Delhi High Court opined that the power of 
inspection by the Regional Committee is inherent in 
exercise of the power u/s. 17 and it is not imperative on 
the part of the Council to issue notice u/s. 13 before 
B 
taking action u/s. 17. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Sections 17 and 13 of National Council for 
Teacher Education Act, 1993 must be harmoniously C 
construed. In exercise of its powers under Section 17, the 
Regional Committee may feel that inspection of a 
recognised institution is necessary before it can arrive at 
the satisfaction as to whether such recognised institution 
has contravened any of the provisions of the Act or the 
D 
rules or the regulations or the orders made thereunder 
or breached the terms of the recognition. In that event, 
the route of inspection as provided u/s. 13 has to be 
followed. If the Regional Committee has been authorised 
by the Council to perform its function of inspection, the 
E 
Regional Committee may cause the inspection of 
recognised institution to be made as provided in Section 
13 and prescribed in Rule 8 of National Council for 
Teacher Education Rules, 1997. Where, however, the 
Regional Committee feels that the inspection of a 
F 
recognised institution is not necessary for the proposed 
action u/s. 17, obviously it can proceed in accordance 
with the law without following the route of inspection as 
provided u/s. 13. [Para 28) [872-E-G] 
2. It cannot be accepted that unnecessary delay G 
would occasion if inspection of a recognised institution 
is carried out in terms of Section 13 and as prescribed 
by Rule 8. Rather the inspection in that manner would 
bring objectivity and fairness. The guidelines for 
expeditious completion of such inspection can always be 
H 
858 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 2 S.C.R. 
A · framed by the Council. The efficacy of right of appeal u/ 
s. 18 is not at all affected if the inspection.of a recognied 
institution is done in the manner indicated above. [Para 
29) [873-B-C] 
. 
8 
3. Thus the view of the Delhi High Court that· the 
power of inspection by the Regional Committee is 
inherent in exercise of the power u/s. 17 and it is not 
imperative on the part of the Council to issue notice u/s. 
13 before taking action u/s. 17 is set aside. The view of 
C Madhya Pradesh High Court that before proceeding u/s. 
17, the course of inspection provided in Section 13 has 
to be necessarily followed in all situations is also set 
aside. [Para 30) [873-D-F] 
' 
4. Interest of justice shall be sub-served if the 
D Council causes inspection of all
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.