LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus LBS B.ED. COLLEGE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2016] 5 S.C.R. 298 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. LBS B.ED. COLLEGE AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 9193 of2016) SEPTEMBER 08, 2016 [DIPAK MISRA AND C. NAGAPPAN -, JJ.] National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - ss. 7, 12, 32 - National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 - Regns: 4, 5, 7 - Grant of recognition by the NCTE lo private institutions desirous of conducting teacher training courses· - Role of State - Held: NCTE is required to take into consideration opinion of the State, for the State has a vital role to offer proper comments supported by due reasoning - However, the final authority rests with the NCTE - .Education/Educational Institutions. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The State has a say, may be a limited one, because the State's say is not binding on the NCTE. However, the NCTE is required to take the same into consideration, for the State has a vital role to offer proper comments supported by due reasoning. Final authority rests with the NCTE. Whenever an application is received under the Regulations framed by NCTE for grant of recognition, the NCTE shall be guided by its own Regulations. The NCTE shall take into consideration the recommendations and views of the State despite the fact that it has the final say. [Paras 14 and 15) [309-C-E] State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors.(2006) 9 SCC 1: 2006 (3) SCR 638; National Council for Teacher Education & others v. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan & others (20ll) 3 SCC 238 : 2011 (2) SCR 291; St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education and another (2003) 3 SCC 321 : 2003 (1) SCR 975; Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya & others v. Subhash Rahangdale & 298 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. LBS B.ED. COLLEGE AND ORS. 499 others (2012) 2 SCC 425 : 2012 (2) SCR 1; Maa A Vaishno Devi Mahi/a Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2013) 2 SCC 617: 2012 (13) SCR 810 - Referred to. Case Law Reference 2006 (3) SCR 638 referred to Para8 2011 (2) SCR 291 referred to Para9 2003 (1) SCR 975 referred to Para 10 2012 (2) SCR 1 referred to Para 11 2012 (13) SCR 810 referred to Para 13 From the Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2015 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1866 of2014 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench. WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 9184, 9187, 9190, 9191, 9182, 9185, 9189, 9180, 9181, 9183, 9186, 9188, 9192of2016. P. S .. Narasimha, ASG, Shiv Mangal Sharma, AAG, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Gaurav Sharma, AOR, Ms. Abhinandini Sharma, Shrey Kapoor, S. N. Singh, Prateek Bhatia, Ms. Vara Gaur, Dhawal Mohan, Advs. for the Appellants. · Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Vivek Tankha, Sr.Advs, Anand Varma, Mritunjay Kumar Sinha, Gaurav Agrawal, Chandra Prakash, AOR, Disha Yaish, Amitesh Kumar, Shashank Shankar Singh, Ravi_ Kant, Mayank Manish, Kumnan D., Sachin Pujari, Ms. Nikita Shrivastava, Harshvardhan Jha, Yugandhara Jha, Adarsh Upadhyay, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Ms. Nivedita Nair for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DIPAK MISRA, J. I. Leave granted. 2. The present appeals, by special leave, call in question the legal acceptability of the common order dated 22.01.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1866of2014 whereby the Division Bench has allowed the students to be admitted for the academic year 2015-2016 subject to fulfillment of the new guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher B c D E F G H 300 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R. Education (NCTE) on 28.11.2014. At the very inception, it is seemly to note that the directions issued by the High Court have already been given effect to and neither the learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan nor the NCTE, the respondent herein, nor the other respondents have any kind of dispute over the same. 3. The crux of the controversy is whether the State Government has any say in the matter of grant of recognition to the institutions who apply for establishing institutions to get recognition from the NCTE under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for brevity, "the Act") and the Regulations framed thereunder. It is necessary to state here that the learned Single Judge had arrived at the conclusion that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.