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 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.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.