2011 (5) TMI 302 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the appellants who had not been granted recognition by the Western Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - Appeal is dismissed

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to question the High Court's order cancelling recognition.
2. Compliance with the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and the 2007 Regulations.
3. Validity of recognition granted by WRC, Bhopal.
4. Misrepresentation by appellants regarding recognition status.
5. Regularization of admissions made by appellants.
6. Compensation to students affected by the misrepresentation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Question the High Court's Order Cancelling Recognition:
The appellants, who had not been granted recognition by the Western Regional Committee (WRC) of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), questioned the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court's order that cancelled the recognition granted to over 290 institutions. The Supreme Court found that the appellants were not affected by the High Court's order as they had not been granted recognition by WRC, Bhopal. Therefore, they were not entitled to challenge the High Court's decision.

2. Compliance with the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and the 2007 Regulations:
The judgment detailed the statutory framework under the NCTE Act, 1993, and the 2007 Regulations, emphasizing the requirements for recognition of teacher education institutions. Sections 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17-A of the Act, along with relevant provisions of the 2007 Regulations, were highlighted to show the legal requirements for obtaining recognition and affiliation. The appellants failed to meet these statutory requirements, as they did not have the necessary recognition from WRC, Bhopal.

3. Validity of Recognition Granted by WRC, Bhopal:
The Central Government's inquiry revealed irregularities in the recognition process by WRC, Bhopal, leading to the cancellation of recognitions. The High Court's decision to quash the recognitions was based on the finding that WRC, Bhopal had granted recognition without considering the views of the State Governments, which was a mandatory requirement under the Act and the Regulations.

4. Misrepresentation by Appellants Regarding Recognition Status:
The appellants misrepresented their recognition status to the Supreme Court, claiming they had been granted recognition by NCTE. This misleading statement led the Court to entertain their special leave petitions and pass interim orders. The Supreme Court found that the appellants had not approached the Court with clean hands and had polluted the stream of justice by making false statements. Consequently, they were not entitled to any relief under Article 136 of the Constitution.

5. Regularization of Admissions Made by Appellants:
The Court considered whether to regularize the admissions of students who were allotted to the appellants by the State Government based on the interim orders. The Court concluded that since none of the appellants had been granted recognition by WRC, Bhopal, they were not entitled to admit any students. Regularizing such admissions would be detrimental to national interest and could lead to future educators being trained under institutions that had not met the required standards. Therefore, the Court refused to issue any direction for regularizing the admissions.

6. Compensation to Students Affected by the Misrepresentation:
The Supreme Court directed the appellants to pay Rs.1 lakh to each student as compensation for the injury inflicted upon them due to the misrepresentation about their entitlement to admit students to the D.Ed. course. Additionally, the Court declared that degrees awarded to such students would not be valid for any purpose. WRC, Bhopal was instructed to publish a list of these students and forward it to the Education Department of Maharashtra to ensure that these degrees are not recognized by government and aided institutions.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay costs of Rs.2 lakhs to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and condemned the appellants' misrepresentation, ensuring that justice was served both in terms of compliance with the law and compensation to the affected students.

← Previous Next →