Abhyudya Sanstha vs Union Of India & Ors

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4305-4306 OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 5795-5796 of 2009)

Abhyudya Sanstha Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Union of India & Ors. Respondents

With

Civil Appeal Nos. 4307-4308 of 2011 [@SLP(C)Nos.5786-5787/2009]

Civil Appeal Nos. 4309-4310 of 2011 [@SLP(C)No. SLP(C)Nos.5831-5832/2009]

Civil Appeal Nos. 4311-4312 of 2011 [@SLP(C)Nos. 21661-21662/2009]

Civil Appeal Nos. 4313-4314 of 2011 [@SLP(C)Nos. 21675-21676/2009]

Civil Appeal No. 4315 of 2011 [@SLP(C)No. 25703/2009]

Civil Appeal No. 4316 of 2011 [@SLP(C)No. 25711/2009]

J U D G M E N T

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The only question which needs consideration in these appeals is

whether the appellants who had not been granted recognition by the Western

Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education and who

2

did not get affiliation from the examining body in accordance with the

provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for

short, `the Act') and the National Council for Teacher Education

(Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 (for short, `the

Regulations') are entitled to question the order passed by the Division Bench

of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench whereby recognition granted to

over 290 institutions was cancelled.

3. With a view to achieve the object of planned and coordinated

development for the teacher education system throughout the country and

for regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher

education system and for matters connected therewith, Parliament enacted

the Act for the establishment of a Council to be called the National Council

for Teacher Education (for short, "the NCTE") with multifarious functions,

powers and duties. Section 2(c) of the Act defines the term "Council" to

mean a Council established under sub-section (1) of Section 3. Section 2(i)

defines the term "recognised institution" to mean an institution recognised

under Section 14. Section 2(j) defines the term "Regional Committee" to

mean a Committee established under Section 20. Section 3 provides for

establishment of the Council which comprises of a Chairperson, a Vice-

Chairperson, a Member-Secretary, various functionaries of the Government,

thirteen persons possessing experience and knowledge in the field of

3

education or teaching, nine members representing the States and Union

Territories Administration, three members of Parliament, three members to

be appointed from amongst teachers of primary and secondary education and

teachers of recognised institutions. Section 12 of the Act enumerates

functions of the Council. Section 14 provides for recognition of institutions

offering course or training in teacher education. Section 15 lays down the

procedure for obtaining permission by an existing institution for starting a

new course or training. Section 16 contains a non obstante clause and lays

down that an examining body shall not grant affiliation to any institution or

hold examination for a course or training conducted by a recognised

institution unless it has obtained recognition from the concerned Regional

Committee under Section 14 or permission for starting a new course or

training under Section 15. The mechanism for dealing with the cases

involving violation of the provisions of the Act or the rules, regulations,

orders made or issued thereunder or the conditions of recognition by a

recognised institution finds place in Section 17. By an amendment made in

July, 2006, Section 17-A was added to the Act. It lays down that no

institution shall admit any student to a course or training in teacher

education unless it has obtained recognition under Section 14 or permission

under Section 15. Section 29 declares that the NCTE shall, in the discharge

of its functions and duties under the Act be bound by such directions on

questions of policy as the Central Government may give in writing from

4

time to time and the decision of the Central Government as to whether a

question is one of policy or not shall be final. Section 31(1) empowers the

Central Government to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act.

Section 31(2) specifies the matters in respect of which the Central

Government can make rules. Under Section 32(1) the Council can make

regulations for implementation of the provisions of the Act subject to the

rider that the regulations shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of the

Act and the rules made thereunder. Section 32(2) specifies the matters on

which the Council can frame regulations. Sections 12, 14 to 16 and 17-A of

the Act, which have bearing on the decision of these appeals read as under:

"12. Functions of the Council.- It shall be the duty of the

Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring

planned and coordinated development of teacher education

and for the determination and maintenance of standards for

teacher education and for the purposes of performing its

functions under this Act, the Council may-

(a) undertake surveys and studies relating to various

aspects of teacher education and publish the result thereof;

(b) make recommendations to the Central and State

Governments, Universities, University Grants Commission

and recognised institutions in the matter of preparation of

suitable plans and programmes in the field of teacher

education;

(c) coordinate and monitor teacher education and its

development in the country;

(d) lay down guidelines in respect of minimum

qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in

schools or in recognised institutions;

5

(e) lay down norms for any specified category of courses

or training in teacher education, including the minimum

eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of

selection of candidates, duration of the course, course

contents and mode of curriculum;

(f) lay down guidelines for compliance by recognised

institutions, for starting new courses or training and for

providing physical and instructional facilities, staffing

pattern and staff qualifications;

(g) xxx xxx xxx

(h) xxx xxx xxx

(i) xxx xxx xxx

(j) examine and review periodically the implementation

of the norms, guidelines and standards laid down by the

Council and to suitably advise the recognised institutions;

(k) xxx xxx xxx

(l) xxx xxx xxx

(m) xxx xxx xxx

(n) perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it

by the Central Government.

14. Recognition of institutions offering course or

training in teacher education.-(1) Every institution

offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher

education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of

recognition under this Act, make an application to the

Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such

manner as may be determined by regulations:

Provided that an institution offering a course or training in

teacher education immediately before the appointed day,

shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a

period of six months, if it has made an application for

6

recognition within the said period and until the disposal of

the application by the Regional Committee.

(2) The fee to be paid along with the application under

sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.

(3) On receipt of an application by the Regional

Committee from any institution under sub-section (1), and

after obtaining from the institution concerned such other

particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall,-

(a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate

financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified

staff, laboratory and that if fulfils such other conditions

required for proper functioning of the institution for a

course or training in teacher education, as may be

determined by regulations, pass an order granting

recognition to such institution, subject to such

conditions as may be determined by regulations; or

(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not

fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass

an order refusing recognition to such institution for

reasons to be recorded in writing:

Provided that before passing an order under sub-clause

(b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable

opportunity to the concerned institution for making a

written representation.

(4) xxx xxx xxx

(5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has

been refused shall discontinue the course or training in

teacher education from the end of the academic session next

following the date of receipt of the order refusing

recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3).

(6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order

under sub-section (4),-

(a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition

has been granted; or

7

(b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where

recognition has been refused.

15. Permission for a new course or training by

recognised institution.- (1) Where any recognised

institution intends to start any new course or training in

teacher education, it may make an application to seek

permission therefor to the Regional Committee concerned in

such form and in such manner as may be determined by

regulations.

(2) The fees to be paid along with the application

under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.

(3) On receipt of an application from an institution

under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the

recognised institution such other particulars as may be

considered necessary, the Regional Committee shall,-

(a) if it is satisfied that such recognised institution has

adequate financial resources, accommodation, library,

qualified staff, laboratory, and that it fulfils such other

conditions required for proper conduct of the new course or

training in teacher education, as may be determined by

regulations, pass an order granting permission, subject to

such conditions as may be determined by regulation; or

(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not

fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an

order refusing permission to such institution, for reasons to

be recorded in writing:

Provided that before passing an order refusing permission

under sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide

a reasonable opportunity to the institution concerned for

making a written representation.

(4) xxx xxx xxx

16. Affiliating body to grant affiliation after

recognition or permission by the Council.-

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the

time being in force, no examining body shall, on or after the

appointed day,-

8

(a) grant affiliation, whether provisional or

otherwise, to any institution; or

(b) hold examination, whether provisional or

otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a

recognised institution,

unless the institution concerned has obtained

recognition from the Regional Committee concerned,

under section 14 or permission for a course or training

under section 15.

17-A. No admission without recognition.- No institution

shall admit any student to a course or training in teacher

education, unless the institution concerned has obtained

recognition under section 14 or permission under section 15,

as the case may be."

4. In exercise of the power vested in it under Section 32, the Council has

framed regulations in 1995, 2002, 2005 and 2007. Since we are concerned

with the 2007 Regulations, the relevant provisions thereof are reproduced

below:-

"5. Manner of making application and Time Limit

(1) An institution eligible under Regulation 4, desirous of

running a teacher education programme may apply to

the concerned Regional Committee of NCTE for

recognition in the prescribed form in triplicate along

with processing fee and requisite documents.

(2) xxx xxx xxx

(3) xxx xxx xxx

(4) xxx xxx xxx

(5) xxx xxx xxx

9

7. Processing of Applications

(1) The applicant institutions shall ensure submission of

applications complete in all respects. However, in

order to cover the inadvertent omissions or

deficiencies in documents, the office of the Regional

Committee shall point out the deficiencies within 30

days of receipt of the applications, which the

applicants shall remove within 90 days. No

application shall be processed if the processing fees of

Rs.40,000/- is not submitted and such applications

would be returned to the applicant institutions.

(2) Simultaneously, on receipt of application, a written

communication alongwith a copy of the application

form submitted by the institution(s) shall be sent by

the office of Regional Committees to the State

Government/U.T. Administration concerned.

(3) On receipt of the communication, the State

Government/UT Administration concerned shall

furnish its recommendations on the applications to the

office of the Regional Committee concerned of the

National Council for Teacher Education within 60

days from receipt. If the recommendation is negative,

the State Government/UT Administration shall

provide detailed reasons/grounds thereof with

necessary statistics, which shall be taken into

consideration by the Regional Committee concerned

while deciding the application. If no communication

is received from the State Government/UT

Administration within the stipulated 60 days, it shall

be presumed that the State Government/UT

Administration concerned has no recommendation to

make.

(4) After removal of all the deficiencies and to the

satisfaction of the Regional Committee concerned, the

inspection of infrastructure, equipments, instructional

facilities etc, of an institution shall be conducted by a

team of experts called Visiting Team (VT) with a

view to assessing the level of preparedness of the

1

institution to commence the course. Inspection would

be subject to the consent of the institution and

submission of the self-attested copy of the completion

certificate of the building. Such inspection, as far as

administratively and logistically possible, shall be in

the chronological order of the date of receipt of the

consent of the institution. In case the consent from

more than one institution is received on the same day,

alphabetical order may be followed. The inspection

shall be conducted within 30 days of receipt of the

consent of the institution.

(5) xxx xxx xxx

(6) xxx xxx xxx

(7) xxx xxx xxx

(8) xxx xxx xxx

(9) The institution concerned shall be informed, through a

letter, of the decision for grant of recognition or

permission subject to appointment of qualified faculty

members before the commencement of the academic

session. The letter issued under this clause shall not

be notified in the Gazette. The faculty shall be

appointed on the recommendations of the Selection

Committee duly constituted as per the policy of the

State Govt/Central Govt/University/UGC or the

concerned affiliating body, as the case may be. The

applicant institution shall submit an affidavit in the

prescribed form that the Selection Committee has

been constituted as stated above. A separate staff list

with the details would be submitted in the prescribed

form. The Regional Committee would rely on the

above affidavit and the staff list before processing the

case for grant of formal recognition.

(10) xxx xxx xxx

(11) The institution concerned, after appointing the

requisite faculty/staff as per Regulation 7(9) above

and fulfilling the conditions under Regulation 7(10) 1

above shall formally inform the Regional Committee

concerned alongwith the requisite affidavit and staff

list. The Regional Committee concerned shall then

issue a formal recognition order that shall be notified

as per provision of the NCTE Act.

(12) xxx xxx xxx

(13) xxx xxx xxx

8. Conditions for grant of recognition

(1) An institution must fulfill all the prescribed conditions

related to norms and standards as prescribed by the

NCTE for conducting the course or training in teacher

education. These norms, inter alia, cover conditions

relating to financial resources, accommodation,

library, laboratory, other physical infrastructure,

qualified staff including teaching and non-teaching

personnel, etc.

(2) In the first instance, an institution shall be considered

for grant of recognition for only one course for the

basic unit as prescribed in the norms & standards for

the particular teacher education programme. An

institution can apply for one basic unit of an additional

course from the subsequent academic session.

However, application for not more than one additional

course can be made in a year.

(3) xxx xxx xxx

(4) xxx xxx xxx

(5) xxx xxx xxx

(6) xxx xxx xxx

(7) No institution shall be granted recognition under these

regulations unless it is in possession of required land

on the date of application. The land free from all

encumbrances could be either on ownership basis or

on lease from Government/Govt institutions for a

1

period of not less than 30 years. In cases where under

relevant State/UT laws the maximum permissible

lease period is less than 30 years, the State

Government/UT Administration law shall prevail.

However, no building could be taken on lease for

running any teacher training course.

(8) xxx xxx xxx

(9) xxx xxx xxx

(10) At the time of inspection, the building of the

institution shall be complete in the form of a

permanent structure on the land possessed by the

institution in terms of Regulation 8(7), equipped with

all necessary amenities and fulfilling all such

requirements as prescribed in the norms and standards.

The applicant institution shall produce the original

completion certificate, approved building plan in

proof of the completion of building and built up area

and other documents to the Visiting Team for

verification. No temporary structure/asbestos roofing

shall be allowed.

(11) xxx xxx xxx

(12) An institution shall make admission only after it

obtains order of recognition from the Regional

Committee concerned under Regulation 7(11), and

affiliation from the examining body.

(13) to (16) xxx xxx xxx"

5. Vide letter dated 2.2.1996, the NCTE issued guidelines for ensuring

that the training institutions are established keeping in view the requirement

of trained teachers in different States and U.T. These guidelines read as

under:

1

"1. The establishment of teacher training institutions by

the Government, private managements or any other agencies

should largely be determined by assessed need for trained

teachers. This need should take into consideration the supply

of trained teachers from existing institutions, the requirement

of such teachers in relation to enrolment projections at

various stages, the attrition rates among trained teachers due

to superannuation, change of occupation, death, etc. and the

number of trained teachers on the live register of the

employment exchanges seeking employment and the

possibility of their deployment. The States having more than

the required number of trained teachers may not encourage

opening of new institutions for teacher education or to

increase the intake.

2. The States having shortage of trained teachers may

encourage establishment of new institutions for teacher

education and to increase intake capacity for various levels

of teacher education institutions keeping in view the

requirements of teachers estimated for the next 10-15 years.

3. Preference might be given to institutions which tend to

emphasise the preparation of teachers for subjects (such as

Science, Mathematics, English, etc.) for which trained

teachers have been in short supply in relation to requirement

of schools.

4. Apart from the usual courses for teacher preparation,

institutions which propose to concern themselves with new

emerging specialities (e.g. computer education, use of

electronic media, guidance and counselling, etc.) should

receive priority. Provisions for these should, however, be

made only after ensuring that requisite manpower,

equipment and infrastructure are available. These

considerations will also be kept in view by the institution

intending to provide for optional subjects to be chosen by

students such as guidance and counselling, special

education, etc.

5. With a view to ensuring supply of qualified and

trained teachers for such specialities such as education of the

1

disabled, non-formal education, education of adults, pre-

school education, vocational education, etc. special efforts

and incentives may be provided to motivate private

managements/voluntary organisations for establishment of

institutions, which lay emphasis on these areas.

6. With a view to promoting professional commitment

among prospective teachers, institutions which can ensure

adequate residential facilities for the Principal and staff of

the institutions as well as hostel facilities for substantial

proportion of its enrolment should be encouraged.

7. Considering that certain areas (tribal, hilly regions,

etc.) have found it difficult to attain qualified and trained

teachers, it would be desirable to encourage establishment of

training institutions in those areas.

8. Institutions should be allowed to come into existence

only if the sponsors are able to ensure that they have

adequate material and manpower resources in terms, for

instance, of qualified teachers and other staff, adequate

buildings and other infrastructure (laboratory, library, etc.), a

reserve fund and operating funds to meet the day-to-day

requirements of the institutions, including payment of

salaries, provision of equipment, etc. Laboratories, teaching

science methodologies and practicals should have adequate

gas plants, proper fittings and regular supply of water,

electricity, etc. They should also have adequate

arrangements. Capabilities of the institution for fulfilling

norms prepared by NCTE may be kept in view.

9. In the establishment of an institution preference needs

to be given to locations which have a large catchment area in

terms of schools of different levels where student teachers

can be exposed to demonstration lessons and undertake

practice teaching. A training institution which has a

demonstration school where innovative and experimental

approaches can be demonstrated could be given preference."

1

6. For facilitating grant of recognition for establishment of teacher

training institutions in different parts of the country, four Regional

Committees including the Western Regional Committee at Bhopal (for short,

`WRC, Bhopal') were set up by the NCTE. In 2006-2007, WRC, Bhopal

granted recognition/permission to large number of colleges/institutions to

start B.Ed./D.Ed. courses in the four States falling within its jurisdiction, i.e.

Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Goa. On receipt of complaints

that grave irregularities were committed by WRC, Bhopal in granting

recognition/permission, the Central Government (Ministry of Human

Resource Development) in exercise of the power vested in it under Section

29 of the Act issued order dated 21.8.2007 and directed WRC, Bhopal not to

grant recognition to any institution/course till a comprehensive review was

undertaken. On 23.8.2007, the Central Government constituted three

member Committee headed by Ms. Anita Kaul, Joint Secretary, Ministry of

Human Resource Development to conduct an in-depth inquiry into the

working of WRC, Bhopal. In its report, the Committee highlighted the

irregularities committed by WRC, Bhopal in granting recognition to various

institutions in the States of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat

without taking into consideration the views of the concerned State

Governments. After considering the report of the Committee, the Central

Government issued the following directions to the NCTE:

1

"(a) The WRC, Bhopal will process all pending applications

ensuring, however, that it scrupulously takes into account

the views of the State Government on the issue of sanction

or rejection of applications for recognition. In case, WRC,

Bhopal differs with the views of the State Government, it

shall record specific reasons in writing in such case and

submit a special report to NCTE headquarters;

(b) NCTE shall expedite the study on the demand and

supply of teachers/teaching capacity specially for the State

of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh

and;

(c) The recommendations in respect of amendments to

NCTE Act and its Regulations shall be carefully examined

in consultation with Ministry of Law."

7. The aforesaid directions were considered in the 100th meeting of

WRC, Bhopal and the following norms were laid down for considering the

recommendations of the State Government:

"(a) If there is any positive recommendation from the State

Government, recognition/permission will be granted as per

the NCTE Regulations:

(b) If the Government has not communicated any positive or

negative remarks within 60 days from the issuance of the

letter from the WRC to the concerned Government, cases

will be considered on merit basis:

(c) In case of the negative recommendation without any

justification, cases will be considered on merit basis;

(d) If the State Government's negative recommendations are

there in respect of a particular institution with justification

and in the opinion of the Committee the justification is

genuine, the cases will be rejected. The intimation of such

cases will be sent to the NCTE headquarters.

1

(e) If the WRC differs with the negative reasons/opinion of

the State Government, cases will be forwarded to the NCTE

headquarters."

8. The appellant institutions submitted applications in 2006 and 2007

for grant of recognition for starting D.Ed course. The establishments of the

appellants were inspected in March, May, June and July 2008. After

considering the inspection reports, WRC, Bhopal issued letters to the

appellants requiring them to give clarification on some issues. The matter

was again considered in the meetings of WRC, Bhopal held in

September/October 2008 in the light of the directives issued by the Central

Government and the appellants were informed that their cases will not be

processed. This was done in the back-drop of the recommendations made

by the State Government that there was no requirement of trained teachers in

the State. In the cases of Rajarshi Sahoo Chatrapati Education Society,

Jagruti Shikshan Sanstha and Navyuvak Shikshan Mandal, letters of intent

were issued, but final recognition was not granted under Section 14 of the

Act read with Regulation 8(12) of 2007 Regulations. The appeal filed by

Navyuvak Sikshan Mandal under Section 18 of the Act was dismissed by the

appellate Authority.

9. In the meanwhile, respondent Nos.6 and 7 filed writ petition

questioning the exercise undertaken by WRC, Bhopal for grant of

1

recognition to over 290 institutions. They alleged that recognition has been

granted in total disregard of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations

and that the views of the State Government were completely ignored. The

Division Bench of the High Court, after an in-depth examination of the

record produced before it and the relevant statutory provisions, quashed the

recognitions granted by WRC, Bhopal.

10. Although, the appellants were not at all affected by the order of the

Division Bench of the High Court because they had not been granted

recognition by WRC, Bhopal, they filed special leave petitions and prayed

for setting aside orders dated 7.1.2009 and 16.1.2009 passed by the Division

Bench of the High Court. They also filed applications for permission to file

special leave petitions by stating that the orders passed by the High Court

would adversely affect their right to continue the D.Ed. course. The

appellants pleaded that the High Court could not have quashed the

recognition granted by WRC, Bhopal without hearing the affected persons

and without examining the issue of locus standi of the writ petitioners. They

also claimed that infrastructure has been created by investing huge amount

and cancellation of recognition will cause irreparable loss to them. In the

synopsis and list of dates, all the appellants made categorical statement that

after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Regulations,

the NCTE granted permission/recognition to them for starting D.Ed. course.

1

11. Since the Court was not apprised of the true status of the

applications filed by the appellants for grant of recognition and patently

wrong and misleading statements were made that they have been duly

recognised by the NCTE, this Court entertained the special leave petitions

along with large number of other similar cases filed by those who had been

granted recognition by WRC, Bhopal, issued notices and passed order of

status quo. Later on, further interim orders were passed directing the State

Government to allot students to the appellants for D. Ed course.

12. In the case of Abhyudya Sanstha, some interesting developments

took place during the pendency of the special leave petition. By an order

dated 26.4.2009/3.5.2010, WRC, Bhopal refused recognition to the

appellant. The Writ Petition filed by the institute was allowed by the

Division Bench of the High Court and WRC, Bhopal was directed to

reconsider the appellant's plea for recognition. After remand, WRC, Bhopal

reconsidered the appellant's application and rejected the same vide order

dated 3.5.2010. The appeal preferred against that order was dismissed by

the competent authority. This time, the appellant did not approach the

Bombay High Court. Instead, it filed Writ Petition No. 6784 of 2010 in the

Delhi High Court. By an order dated 17.1.2011, the learned Single Judge

allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to WRC, Bhopal for

processing the applications of the appellant afresh. These additional facts

2

clearly demonstrate that on the date of filing the special leave petition,

appellant Abhyudya Sanstha did not have recognition in terms of Section 14

read with Regulation 7(11). The position of the other appellants is no better.

Three of them got letters of intent but none was granted recognition. We

have no doubt that if the appellants had not misrepresented the facts and

made wrong statement on the issue of their recognition by WRC, Bhopal,

this Court would not have entertained the special leave petition, what to say

of passing interim orders.

13. At the hearing, Shri Shekhar Naphade and Shri Ashok Srivastava,

learned senior counsel appearing for some of the appellants fairly stated that

their clients were not granted recognition by WRC, Bhopal and none of

them was eligible to admit the students to D. Ed. course, but submitted that

the Court may direct WRC, Bhopal to reconsider their applications for

recognition and protect the students who got admission on the basis of

allotment made by the State Government so that they may not face difficulty

in getting employment on the basis of the degrees etc. awarded by the

affiliating body. Learned senior counsel submitted that the statements made

in the synopsis and list of dates of the special leave petitions about grant of

recognition by NCTE were not deliberate and the institutions and the

students may not be penalized for the lapse, which inadvertently occurred at

the time of drafting the petitions. Shri Ashok Srivastava, learned senior

2

counsel stated that his client has not admitted any student on the strength of

the interim order passed by this Court.

14. Shri Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the NCTE submitted that

the Court may not issue any direction for regularisation of admissions made

by the appellants because none of them had been granted recognition by

WRC, Bhopal. Learned counsel argued that in the absence of recognition by

the competent authority, the appellants are not entitled to conduct any

teacher training course and, therefore, the students admitted by them should

not be allowed to reap the benefits of illegal admissions.

15. We have considered the respective submissions and carefully

examined the records.

16. In our view, the appellants deserve to be non suited because they

have not approached the Court with clean hands. The plea of inadvertent

mistake put forward by the learned senior counsel for the appellants and

their submission that the Court may take lenient view and order

regularisation of the admissions already made sounds attractive but does not

merit acceptance. Each of the appellants consciously made a statement that

it had been granted recognition by the NCTE, which necessarily implies that

recognition was granted in terms of Section 14 of the Act read with

2

Regulations 7 and 8 of the 2007 Regulations. Those managing the affairs of

the appellants do not belong to the category of innocent,

illiterate/uneducated persons, who are not conversant with the relevant

statutory provisions and the court process. The very fact that each of the

appellants had submitted application in terms of Regulation 7 and made

itself available for inspection by the team constituted by WRC, Bhopal

shows that they were fully aware of the fact that they can get recognition

only after fulfilling the conditions specified in the Act and the Regulations

and that WRC, Bhopal had not granted recognition to them.

Notwithstanding this, they made bold statement that they had been granted

recognition by the competent authority and thereby succeeded in persuading

this Court to entertain the special leave petitions and pass interim orders.

The minimum, which can be said about the appellants is that they have not

approached the Court with clean hands and succeeded in polluting the

stream of justice by making patently false statement. Therefore, they are not

entitled to relief under Article 136 of the Constitution. This view finds

support from plethora of precedents. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR

1963 SC 1558, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka (1991)

3 SCC 261 and large number of other cases, this Court denied relief to the

petitioner/appellant on the ground that he had not approached the Court with

clean hands. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das (supra), the Court revoked the

leave granted to the appellant and observed:

2

"It is of utmost importance that in making material statements

and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave made

under Article 136 of the Constitution, care must be taken not to

make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or

misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the

Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact

contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be

unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making

statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the

hearing of the appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the

material statements made by the appellant in his application for

special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the respondent

is entitled to contend that the appellant may have obtained

special leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what

he characterises as misrepresentations of facts contained in the

petition for special leave, the Supreme Court may come to the

conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the

appellant ought to be revoked."

In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka (supra), the Court

noted that the appellant had concealed the fact that the award could not be

made by the Land Acquisition Officer within the time prescribed under

Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act because of the stay order passed by

the High Court and observed:

"...... Curiously enough, there is no reference in the special

leave petitions to any of the stay orders and we came to know

about these orders only when the respondents appeared in

response to the notice and filed their counter-affidavit. In our

view, the said interim orders have a direct bearing on the

question raised and the non-disclosure of the same certainly

amounts to suppression of material facts. On this ground alone,

the special leave petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well

settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the

Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches

this Court for such relief must come with frank and full

disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material

2

facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly

dismiss the special leave petitions."

In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114, this Court noticed the

progressive decline in the values of life and observed:

"For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values

of life i.e. "satya" (truth) and "ahimsa" (non-violence).

Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the

people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth

constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which

was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used

to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the

consequences. However, post-Independence period has seen

drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has

overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has

become so intense that those involved in litigation do not

hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and

suppression of facts in the court proceedings.

In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up.

Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for

truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means

for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed

by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to

time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a

litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who

touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not

entitled to any relief, interim or final."

17. The question which remains to be considered is whether the Court

should direct regularisation of the admission of the students, who were

allotted to the appellants by the State Government etc. pursuant to the

directions given by this Court. Although, in the absence of cogent material,

it is not possible to record a finding that the students were party to the

patently wrong and misleading statement made by the appellants, the Court

2

cannot overlook the fact that none of the appellants has been granted

recognition by WRC, Bhopal and in view of the prohibition contained in

Section 17A of the Act read with Regulation 8(12), the appellants could not

have admitted any student. However, with a view to make business and earn

profit in the name of education, the appellants successfully manipulated the

judicial process for allocation of the students. Therefore, there is no valid

ground much less justification to confer legitimacy upon the admission made

by the appellants in a clandestine manner. Any such order by the Court will

be detrimental to the national interest. The students who may have taken

admission and completed the course from an institution, which had not been

granted recognition, will not be able to impart value based education to the

future generation of the country. Rather, they may train young minds as to

how one can succeed in life by manipulations. Therefore, we do not

consider it proper to issue direction for regularising the admissions made by

the appellants on the strength of the interim orders passed by this Court.

18. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. Each of the appellants is

saddled with costs of Rs.2 lacs, which shall be deposited with the

Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within a period of three months.

If the needful is not done, the Secretary, Maharashtra State Legal Services

Authority shall be entitled to recover the amount of cost as arrears of land

revenue.

2

19. We also declare that none of the students, who had taken admission

on the basis of allotment made by the State Government etc., shall be

eligible for the award of degree etc. by the affiliating body. If the degree has

already been awarded to any such student, the same shall not be treated valid

for any purpose whatsoever.

20. WRC, Bhopal shall publish a list of the students, who were admitted

by the appellants pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court and

forward the same to the Education Department of the Government of

Maharashtra, which shall circulate the same to all government and aided

institutions so that they may not employ the holders of such degrees.

21. The appellants are directed to pay Rs.1 lac to each of the students by

way of compensation in lieu of the injury inflicted upon them by way of

misrepresentation about their entitlement to admit the students to D.Ed.

course.

.............................................J.

[ G.S. Singhvi ]

.............................................J.

[ K.S.Panicker Radhakrishnan ]

New Delhi;

May 12, 2011.