ST. JOHNS TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE versus REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 975 · Decided: 07-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ST. JOHNS TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE 
A 
v. 
,. "'"'(· 
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS 
EDUCATION AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 7, 2003 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND 
G.P. MATHUR, JJ.) 
National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993-Section 14(3)- c 
National Council for Teacher Education (application for recognition, the 
manner for submission, determination of conditions for recognition of 
institutions and permission to start new course or training) Reg-J/ation, I 995-
~-
Regulations 5(e) and (/)-Requiring institution intending to offer course in 
teacher education to submit application for recognition with No O~;ection 
Certificate from State Governmen/ or Union Territory-Validity of-Held: D 
Regulations are valid and intra vires the provisions of 1993 Act since the 
main purpose of obtaining NOC is to get material and data on which Regional 
Committee has to be satisfied before granting recognition. 
The question which arose for consideration in these matters was 
E 
whether Regulations S(e) and (f) of the National Council for Teacher 
Education (application for recognition, the manner for submission, 
determination of conditions for recognition of institutions and permission 
to start new course or training) Regulation, 1995 requiring submission of 
application for recognition with No Objection Certificate from State/Union 
Territory; in which the institute is located are ultra vires the provisions of F 
' 
National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. 
>;. 
Appellants contended that Section 14 of the Act lays down that every 
institution intending to offer a course or training in teacher education shall 
make an application to the Regional Committee which may pass an order 
granting recognition to such institution if it is satisfied and this shows that G 
the entire exercise has to be done by. the Regional Committee itself, 
however, Regulations S(e) and (f) which require obtaining of a NOC from 
the State Government also confer jurisdiction on the State Government 
for grant of recognition, which is wholly outside the purview of the Act; 
that the 1993 Act does not contemplate any role for the State Government H 
975 
976 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
r2003] I S.C.R. 
A but by insisting for obtaining a NOC from the State or Union Territory, 
Regulations have created another body to consider the application moved 
by an institution for grant of recognition which is not at all contemplated 
by the Act; that in \'iew of Section 14(3) of the Act, the satisfaction is to 
be that of the Regional Committee alone and no other authority or body, 
much less the State Government, can have any say in the matter which 
B may have a bearing on the satisfaction of the Regional Committee; that 
under the guise of framing the Regulations, the power of recognition itself 
has been given to the State Government as in the event a NOC is not 
granted by the State Government, the application made to the Regional 
Committee is treated as incomplete and is not even considered on merits; 
C that the power is an arbitrary or unchanelled power; that the impugned 
Regulations have the effect of conferring the power of consideration of 
the application for the grant of recognition upon the State Government, 
as in the event of rejection of NOC the application is not even registered 
by the Council; that in some cases the State Government for a very long 
period has not taken any decision either to grant a NOC or declined to 
D grant the same and thereby the right to establish an institution for 
teachers' training or start a course was completely defeated; and that no 
guidelines have been given in the impugned Regulations to indicate the 
circumstances under which a NOC could be granted and, therefore, for 
all these reasons the impugned· Regulations are wholly ultra vire~ and 
E invalid. 
Respondent-Council contended that it is not only desirable but 
also essential for an institution to 'obtain a NOC from the concerned State 
Government or Union Territory where it is situate; that there are only 
four Regional Committees in the whole country and it is physically not 
F possible for them to obtain the relevant data which has to be appraised 
and considered before grant of recognition and this exercise can only be 
;-<·' 
performed by the concerned State Government; that the main purpose of 
obtaining a NOC from the State Government is to get the material and 
data on which the Regional Committee has to be satisf

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