THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND versus NALANDA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 10 S.C.R. 60 · Decided: 10-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
v.
NALANDA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 8013 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 10, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions: Grant of recognition for
B.Ed. courses – Order of the State Government not to grant
recognition to the new B.Ed. Colleges and to cancel the recognition
of the respondent no. 1 – Single Judge of the High Court quashed
the said order and directed the National Council for Teachers
Education to take appropriate decision on the application of
respondent No.1 to increase the seats to B.Ed. Course – Upheld by
the Division Bench – On appeal, held: State Government was well
within its right to recommend and/or opine that the State Government
is not in favour of granting further recognition to the new B.Ed.
colleges as against the need of annually 2500 teachers approximately
13000 students would be passing out every year, thus, for the
remaining students, there will be unemployment - Said decision
cannot be said to be arbitrary – Thus, order passed by the High
Court is unsustainable, and is quashed and set aside – Policy
decision.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court committed a serious error in
holding that the decision not to recommend for the new B.Ed.
colleges can be said to be arbitrary. Under the provisions of the
NCTE Regulations, the State is well within its right to make
suitable recommendations. As per Rule 7(5) of the NCTE
Regulations, 2014, on receipt of the communication from the office
of the Regional Committee to the State, the State Government is
required to send its recommendations or comments to the
Regional Committee. It further provides that in case the State
Government is not in favour of the recommendation, it shall
provide detailed reasons or grounds thereof with necessary
statistics, which shall be taken into consideration by the Regional
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 60
60
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
61
Committee concerned while disposing of the application.
Therefore, when the State Government is required to provide
detailed reasons against grant of recognition with necessary
statistics, it includes the need and/or requirement. Therefore,
the State Government was well within its right to recommend
and/or opine that the State Government is not in favour of granting
further recognition to the new B.Ed. colleges as against the need
of annually 2500 teachers approximately 13000 students would
be passing out every year, therefore, for the remaining students,
there will be unemployment. The said decision cannot be said to
be arbitrary as observed and held by the High Court. The need
of the new colleges looking to the requirement can be said to be
a relevant consideration and a decision not to recommend further
recognition to the new B.Ed. colleges on the need basis cannot
be said to be arbitrary. The impugned judgment and order passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court, confirming the judgment
and order passed by the Single Judge, quashing the order of the
State Government, is unsustainable, and is quashed and set
aside.[Para 9][67-B-F, G-H; 68-A]
Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh v. State
of Maharashtra & Others (1986) 4 SCC 361 – relied
on.
Gangadhar and Another v. Union of India and others
2009 SCC Online Bom. 17; Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila
Mahavidyalaya v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 276/2012 dated 18.07.2018;
State of Rajasthan v. LBS B.Ed. College & Others (2016)
16 SCC 110 : [2016] 5 SCR 298 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(1986) 4 SCC 361
relied on
Para 8
[2016] 5 SCR 298
relied on
Para 4.2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8013
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.09.2018 of the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 144 of 2014.
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. NALANDA COLLEGE OF
EDUCATION AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
62
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Krishnam Mishra, Param Kumar Mishra,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Adarsh Kumar, Ms. Nidhi Nagpal, Advs.
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 144/2014, by
which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the Special
Appeal preferred by the State of Utta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.