LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus SANT DNYANESHWAR SHIKSHAN SHASTRA MAHAVIDYALAYA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA
v.
SANT DNY ANESHWAR SHIKSHAN SHASTRA
MAHA VIDY ALAYA AND ORS.
MARCH 31, 2006
[Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJ., C.K. THAKKER AND
P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.]
National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993;
Section 14-lnstitution intending to offer a course or training in teacher
education-recognition, grant of-State Government taking a policy decision
not to grant 'No objection certificate' to any such intending institution--·
Held. the subject of planned and coordinated development of the teacher-
D education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper
maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher-education system and
matters connected therewith , fullv covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule
VII-not .open to the State legislature to encroach upon the said field as
Parliament alone could have exercised the power by making appropriate
law and, thus not open to State Government to refuse permission relying on
E a State Act or on 'policy consideration-Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII
of the Constitution of India.
Constitution of India 1950;
Article 19(1) Clause (g)-Right to practise any profession, or to carry
F on any occupation, trade or business subject to reasonable restrictions under
Article 19(6)-Applications made by colleges to NCTE under 1993 Act and
after complying with the provisions of the Act-Permission granted by NCTE-
State Government ciling a policy decision refi1sed to grant 'No obiection
certificate'-Held, the State thereafter could not have interfered with the said
G decision.
Article 21 A--Held, would cover primary as well as secondary education.
Maharashatra University Act 1994;
H
638
-
•
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA" SANT DNY ANESHWAR SHIKSHAN SHASTRA MAHAVIDYALAYA
63 9
Sections 82 and 83-applicability-grant of affiliation to an A
institution-Held, once recognition has been granted by NCTE under Section
14(6) of the Act, every University ('examining body') is obliged to and
sections 82 and 83 of the University Act do not apply to such cases-Section
14(6) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993.
The petitioner, a public trust, desired to impart education for B.ED. course. B
To meet the requirement of infrastructure, library, staff etc., it spent more than
rupees one crore. The petitioner then made an application to SNDT Women's
University, Mumbai on October 30, 2004 by paying the requisite affiliation fees.
A copy of the said application was forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Higher
and Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai. An application was also made by C
the petitioner to NCTE, Western Region Office, Bhopal on December 30, 2003
in the prescribed format for grant of permission to start B.ED. college for women
in accordance with the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Eduction
Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the National Council for
Teacher Education (Norms & Conditions for recognition of Bachelor ofElementary
Education) Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). The D
Expert Committee of NCTE visited the petitioner's campus on June 6, 2005 and
verified the adequacy of infrastructure, staff and other norms. The report was
submitted by the Committee to NCTE which approved and granted recognition
for B.Ed. College to be opened by the petitioner from academic year 2005-06 with
an intake capacity of 100 students. After receipt of the said letter, the petitioner E
applied to the Government of Maharashtra on July 4,2005 for grant of permission
to start the college and\or inclusion of the name of the college in the Central
Admission Process for the year 2005-06. The State Government neither acted
on the said letter nor even replied. Under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994
(hereinafter referred to as 'the University Act') only after permission from the
Government, B.Ed. College can be opened. Since the admission process was to be F
delayed and the petitioner had undertaken every exercise by getting necessary
permission from NCTE and had invested huge amount of more than one crore on
development, infrastructure and appointment of staff etc., it was constrained to
approach the High Court by filing a petition for appropriate relief. An affidavit
was filed by the State authorities asserting that the petitioner had to obtain NOC G
from the State Government The State Government had an important role to play
in the process of grant oExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.