State Govt Can't Cause Impediment In Process Of NCTE To Grant/ Refuse Recognition To Institutes Upon Satisfaction Of Norms: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that while it is for the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to grant or refuse recognition to the institutes upon satisfaction of all the norms laid down, the State Government, though is to be consulted, cannot cause an impediment in such process.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla added that even at the stage of grant of affiliation, the State Government or affiliating body cannot undermine the position of the NCTE and refuse to grant affiliation to the institution on the very same grounds, that have already been scrutinized by, and otherwise fall within the domain of NCTE.

"It is for the NCTE to grant, or refuse, recognition to the respondent-institutes upon satisfaction of all the norms laid down for this purpose. The State Government, though is to be consulted, cannot cause an impediment in such process. The State Government can place for its consideration, before the NCTE its concerns, but the ultimate decision after consideration of all such concerned lies with the NCTE."

The Court was dealing with a batch of appeals filed by NCTE and the Directorate of Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan, challenging the judgment dated 12.04.2021 passed by the Single Judge dealing with a pleas filed by the institutes. NCTE further challenged the order dated 16.07.2021 by which it's Review Petitions were dismissed by the Single Judge.

It was argued by the NCTE that the power under Regulation 12 of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 can be exercised only in larger public interest and was not intended to be exercised at the instance of an individual institution.

It was further submitted that in terms of sec. 16 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 read with Regulation 9 and Appendix-2 of the Regulations, the entire process of selection of faculty and staff was within the exclusive domain of the State Government or affiliating agencies. It was thus argued that the NCTE, in these circumstances, cannot be vested with the power to relax those conditions or invoke Regulation 12 of the Regulations.

It was argued for the State of Rajasthan that a conscious uniform policy decision was taken in the year 2008 to not grant any new affiliation to any teachers training institute as the State was unable to accommodate approximately 20,000 teachers per annum in schools/institutions, and there was a surplus of trained teachers.

It was argued that the said decision was communicated to the NCTE as well, requesting the NCTE to not issue any communication to grant recommendation to a new institute or for increasing the intake capacity of existing institutes, in light of the policy decision of the State.

On the other hand, the respondent institutes submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Others, the State Government cannot object to the grant of recognition or create any impediment in such process. It was submitted that the alleged policy decision of the State of Rajasthan cannot act as an impediment on the NCTE to grant recognition and that the Single Judge had rightly issued a direction to the State of Rajasthan to appoint an expert in the Selection Committee for the faculty of the respondent institutes.

"The Act has been promulgated by the Parliament for establishing the NCTE with a view to achieve a planned and coordinated development for the teacher education system throughout the country, and for the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system, including qualifications of school teachers. Section 14 of the Act requires every institution intending to offer a course or training in teachers‟ education to apply for grant of recognition to the Regional Committee of the NCTE. The said application is to be considered in such manner as may be determined by the Regulations," the Court observed at the outset.

Tracing the legislation, the Court noted that the processing of an application made by an institute for the grant of recognition passes through various stage.

At the outset, the Court observed there has to be coordination and cooperation between the NCTE, the State Government, and the affiliating body, in the process for grant of recognition.

"However, it is the sole discretion and function of the NCTE to grant or refuse to grant recognition. The State Government and/or the affiliating body are merely to assist the decision making process of the NCTE however, the State Government cannot arrogate to itself such decision making power, or gain primacy in the process," the Court said.

The Court also noted that there is difference between recognition and affiliation, with the role of grant of recognition being assigned to NCTE, while the role of affiliation being assigned to the affiliating body, the power of the State Government and the affiliating body is always subordinate to that of NCTE.

"Even at the stage of grant of "affiliation", the State Government/affiliating body cannot undermine the position of the NCTE, and refuse to grant affiliation to the institution on the very same grounds, that have already been scrutinized by, and otherwise fall within the domain of NCTE," it added.

The Court also noted that the State Government cannot cause hindrance to the grant of recognition to the institutions on policy consideration.

"Therefore, the submission of Dr.Singhvi, the learned senior counsel, that the State of Rajasthan has taken a policy decision not to grant any new affiliation to the institutions cannot be accepted to defeat the right of the Respondent Institutes to grant of recognition by the NCTE," the Court said.

The Court said that in case the State Government or the affiliating University refuses to appoint such expert, NCTE cannot be left helpless, nor can such a situation act to the detriment of the respondent-institutes.

"Just like-in absence of an NOC from the State Government, as is required under Regulation 5(3) of the Regulations, the NCTE must process the application of the applicant- institute, in case of the refusal of the State Government to appoint an expert in the Selection Committee for the faculty, the NCTE must proceed with the process of grant of recognition, and cannot raise its hands and/or claim helplessness on the refusal of the State Government to discharge its functions under the Regulations," the Court said.

It added "The learned Single Judge has, therefore, rightly held that in case the State of Rajasthan refuses to perform its functions, in spite of the direction of the Court, the NCTE must proceed with the application of the respondent institutions, even if this requires the NCTE to exercise its powers of granting relaxation to the Regulations in terms of Regulations 12 of the Regulations."

Furthermore, the Court concluded that the failure or refusal of the State of Rajasthan to adhere to and perform functions bestowed upon it under the Regulations would certainly be one of such circumstance in which the Chairperson of the NCTE would be justified to, and rather bound to exercise the power to relax adherence to the provision of the Regulations.

"It would also be a case of "exceptional cases" wherein the Chairperson shall exercise the powers to relax the provisions of these Regulations, and the related norms and standards," the Court said.

"The above finding, however, would not give an excuse to the State Government not to comply with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, and/or act as an excuse not to perform the functions bestowed upon it under the Regulations. The State Government or its officers would remain liable to be proceeded against, in case it refuses to comply with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge and as affirmed by this Court. We clarify that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to the State of Rajasthan are mandatory, and do not leave the State with the option of not complying with the same. Non compliance of the same shall be at the pain of prosecution for contempt of Court-not only of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, but also of this judgment."

Accordingly, the batch of appeals were dismissed.

Case Title: NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR v. OM COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 355

Click Here To Read Order