The State Of Uttarakhand vs Nalanda College Of Education

The State of Uttarakhand …Appellant Versus Nalanda College of Education and Others …Respondents

JUDGMENT

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 Uttarakhand and others and has

confirmed the judgment and order dated 04.04.2014 passed by the

learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2464 of 2013, by which the

learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 16.07.2013 of the State Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

Government by which the State Government opined/decided not to grant Neetu Sachdeva Date: 2022.11.10 15:09:02 IST Reason:

recognition to the new B.Ed. Colleges and consequently directed the

1 National Council for Teachers Education (for short, ‘NCTE’) to take

appropriate decision on the application of respondent No.1 to increase

the seats to B.Ed. course, the State of Uttarakhand has preferred the

present appeal.

2. Respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner – Nalanda

College of Education, Dehradun (for short, ‘College’) was granted

recognition for B.Ed. course of one year duration with an annual intake

of 100 students by the NCTE under Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act on

22.02.2008. After the recognition, the original writ petitioner was

affiliated to the HNB University under the U.P. State University Act, 1973.

For the academic session 2013-14, the College applied to the Northern

Regional Committee of the NCTE to increase the intake seats of the

students. The opinion of the State Government was sought as per

NCTE Regulations, 2014. The State Government vide

order/communication dated 16.07.2013 sent its opinion and informed the

Northern Regional Committee of NCTE that about 13000 students are

passing B.Ed. course per annum against the need of 2500 teachers and

therefore most of the students passing B.Ed. course would be

unemployed. Consequently, the State Government opined that no fresh

recognition be granted undertaking B.Ed. course and also opined to

cancel the recognition of respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner –

2 College. The communication/order dated 16.07.2013 of the State

Government was the subject matter of writ petition before the High

Court.

2.1 The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed and

set aside order/communication dated 16.07.2013 of the State

Government by observing that the ground that the students after passing

B.Ed. course are unemployed and the State Government is not in a

position to grant employment to all of them and therefore institutions

should be closed is nothing except the arbitrary exercise on the part of

the State Government. The learned Single Judge also observed that on

the contrary, instead of closing down the institutions, the State

Government should promote institutions to come up in the State to

provide education and a welfare State is not supposed to close down the

institutions. The learned Single Judge directed the Northern Regional

Committee to take appropriate decision on the application of the original

writ petitioner to increase the seats of B.Ed. course. The judgment and

order passed by the learned Single Judge was the subject matter of

special appeal before the Division Bench. By the impugned judgment

and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the

special appeal and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the

learned Single Judge. The impugned judgment and order passed by the

3 Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the special appeal and

confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge

is the subject matter of the present appeal.

3. Shri Krishnam Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant – State of Uttarakhand has vehemently submitted that in the

facts and circumstances of the case both, the learned Single Judge as

well as the Division Bench of the High Court have seriously erred in

quashing and setting aside the communication/order dated 16.07.2013

holding the same as arbitrary.

3.1 It is submitted that a conscious policy decision was taken by the

State Government not to grant recognition to the new Colleges for B.Ed.

course and not to increase the intake capacity of the B.Ed. course for

valid reasons/grounds, the same was not required to be interfered with

by the High Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

3.2 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the State that a conscious policy decision was taken by the State

Government reflected in the communication/order dated 16.07.2013

taking into consideration the fact that against the need of 2500 teachers

per annum, approximately 13000 students would be passing out the

B.Ed. course, which ultimately would result into unemployment as the

4 State Government would not be in a position to offer employment to

other pass out students completing B.Ed. course, over and above 2500

students. It is submitted that such a decision cannot be said to be in any

way arbitrary, as observed and held by the learned Single Judge,

confirmed by the Division Bench. In support of the above submission,

reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Vidharbha

Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh v. State of Maharashtra &

Others, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 361 (paragraph 6).

3.3 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the State that even as per NCTE Regulations, before the Regional

Committee takes a decision on grant of recognition/increase in the intake

capacity, the opinion of the State Government is must, which includes

the detailed reasons or grounds with necessary statistics. It is submitted

that therefore the State Government was well within its rights in

submitting the opinion and/or taking a decision against the recognition,

which was with necessary statistics. On the requirement of submitting

the opinion by the State Government on whether to grant recognition or

not which shall be with necessary statistics, reliance is placed on the

decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Gangadhar and

Another v. Union of India and others, 2009 SCC Online Bom.

17(paragraphs 36, 38, 41 & 42).

5 3.4 Making above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid

decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeal and quash and set

aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench

as well as that of the learned Single Judge.

4. Ms. Manisha T. Karia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

NCTE has supported the appellant – State of Uttarakhand. She has

also heavily relied upon Rule 7 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, under

which the State Government is required to furnish its recommendations

or comments to the Regional Committee before any final decision is

taken by the Regional Committee, which shall include to provide detailed

reasons or grounds thereof with necessary statistics, in case the State

Government opines not in favour of recognition.

4.1 It is submitted that when a conscious decision was taken by the

State Government not to grant further recognition and/or not to increase

the intake capacity along with the detailed reasons or grounds thereof

with necessary statistics, considering the fact that against the

need/requirement of 2500 students per annum, approximately 13000

students shall pass out the B.Ed. course, which will render them

unemployed and the aforesaid can be said to be a valid ground, the

High Court has committed a serious error in quashing and setting aside

such a policy decision treating the same as arbitrary.

6 4.2 Learned counsel appearing for the NCTE has also heavily relied

upon the order dated 18.07.2018 passed by this Court in M.A. No. 1175

of 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 276/2012 in the case of Maa Vaishno

Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others,

by which this Court has not interfered with the similar decision of the

State Government not to grant further recognition to the new Colleges. She has also relied upon the observations made by this Court in

paragraph 16 in the case of State of Rajasthan v. LBS B.Ed. College

& Others, (2016) 16 SCC 110, in which this Court has observed that

under the NCTE Regulations, the State has a say, may be a limited one,

NCTE is required to take the opinion of the State Government into

consideration, for the State has a vital role to offer proper comments

supported by due reasoning. It is submitted that therefore the NCTE was

required to take into consideration the views/opinion of the State

Government contained in the communication/order dated 16.07.2013. It

is submitted that therefore the High Court has committed a serious error

in quashing and setting aside the communication/order dated

16.07.2013 which was in the form of a policy decision not to grant further

recognition for B.Ed. course which was on a valid reasoning and the

grounds, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India.

7

5. Though served, no body appears on behalf of Nalanda College of

Education.

6. We have heard Shri Krishnam Mishra, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the appellant – the State of Uttarakhand and Ms. Manisha T.

Karia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NCTE. We have gone

through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, by

which the High Court has quashed and set aside the policy decision

taken by the State of Uttarakhand, opining/deciding not to grant

recognition to the new B.Ed. colleges and consequently recommending

the NCTE to take an appropriate decision on the application submitted

by respondent No.1 to increase the seats of B.Ed. course. It appears

that the State Government vide order/communication dated 16.07.2013

sent its opinion and informed the NCTE that as about 13000 students

are passing B.Ed. course every year against the need of 2500 teachers

and therefore most the students passing B.Ed. course would be

unemployed, it is recommended not to grant any further recognition to

the new B.Ed. colleges. By the impugned judgment and order, the High

Court has set aside the said communication/policy decision terming the

same as arbitrary. Therefore, the short question posed for consideration

of this Court is, “whether the policy decision taken by the State

8 Government can be said to be arbitrary which calls for interference of the

High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?”

7. An identical question came to be considered by this Court in the

case of Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh (supra).

Before this Court, the challenge was the judgment of the Bombay High

Court whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the

order of the Government of Maharashtra refusing to grant permission to

the member institutions of the original writ petitioner to hold the first year

classes in Diploma in Education. In the case before this Court, a policy

decision was taken by the State Government not to grant further

recommendation to start new D.Ed. colleges, inter alia, on the ground

that in Nagpur and Bhandara Districts, a large number of applicants

applied for starting new D.Ed. colleges from time to time. It was found

that the number of the new D.Ed. colleges started in Nagpur and

Bhandara Districts is proportionately much larger, about five times more

than the estimated increased need of the two districts and therefore it

was not desirable and feasible to permit the new D.Ed. colleges. It was

the case of the State that to permit admission of 3000 students every

year will result in a serious consequence of a large scale unemployment.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition which has been confirmed by

this Court by observing that the Government has taken the right decision

9 so as to save the young men from being exploited. This Court also

negatived the contention on behalf of the management that the refusal to

grant permission to hold D.Ed. classes will result in unemployment. This

Court approved the stand on behalf of the State that if the permission is

granted, there will be a large scale unemployment inasmuch as 3000

students will be admitted in the first year classes as against the

requirement of 616 students. Therefore, this Court has approved the

policy decision taken by the State not to grant further recognition to the

new D.Ed. colleges as there was no requirement of the new D.Ed.

colleges looking to the requirement of teachers.

8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision,

the High Court has committed a serious error in holding that the decision

not to recommend for the new B.Ed. colleges can be said to be arbitrary.

At this stage, it is required to be noted that 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

10 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

aforesaid 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. Under the circumstances, the

impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is

unsustainable.

9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present

appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated 10.09.2018

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Special Appeal No.

144/2014, confirming the judgment and order dated 04.04.2014 passed

11 by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2464/2013, quashing the

order/communication dated 16.07.2013 of the State Government

opining/deciding not to grant recognition to the new B.Ed. colleges and

directing the NCTE to take appropriate decision on the application

preferred by respondent No.1 to increase the seats to B.Ed. course, is

hereby quashed and set aside. The instant appeal is allowed

accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

……………………………………J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ……………………………………J. NOVEMBER 10, 2022. [M.M. SUNDRESH]

12