NEHRU GRAM BHARATI UNIVERSITY versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS. on 24 October 2018

578

SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2018] 12 S.C.R. 578

[2018] 12 S.C.R.

NEHRU GRAM BHARATI UNIVERSITY

A

v.

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 10677–10678 of 2018)

BOCTOBER 24, 2018

[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]

Education/Educational Institutions: Recognition of course –Basic Teachers Certificate Course – Admission of students in theAcademic Session 2008-09 and 2009-10 in the Deemed University –CSaid course quashed by the Director, State Council of EducationalResearch and Training (SCERT) – Writ petition by students seekingissuance of direction upon the SCERT to recognize the BTC Courseand the certificates awarded by the Deemed University as legaland valid for selection and appointments – Dismissed by the SingleDJudge – Division Bench held that the Deemed University was notlegally authorised to start the BTC Course for the Academic Session2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively in the absence of strictcompliance of the letter of recognition and awarded compensationof Rs. 50,000/- to each student by the Deemed University in additionto refund of the entire fee which was paid for the two years course –EOn appeal, held: BTC is a Teachers Training Course which wasregulated entirely and exclusively by National Council for TeacherTraining Act and the Regulations framed therein – Thus, the mereconferment of Deemed University status did not entitle this Universityto give BTC degrees to its students – University had to compulsorilyFcomply with the conditions specified by NCTE – Merely becausethe college was conferred the status of Deemed University, theseconditions did not cease to apply as BTC is not one of the degreesmentioned in the degrees specified by the UGC in the OfficialGazette – Though, the Deemed University has later on fulfilled theconditions and got recognition from NCTE in respect of BTC CourseGitself but it has happened only from the year 2012 onwards –Admission of students in BTC Course for the Academic Sessions i.e.2008-09 and 2009-10 was not permissible and such degrees cannotbe treated as validly recognized – Order awarding compensation isupheld.

H

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The notification dated June 27, 2008 grantingstatus of Deemed University was subject to certain conditions.Section 22 of UGC Act gives right upon such Deemed Universityto confer degrees. It is clear that the right which was given to theDeemed University to confer degrees pertain to those degreeswhich are specified by the UGC in the Official Gazette. Admittedly,BTC is not one of the degrees mentioned therein. The reason isobvious. Insofar as BTC is concerned, it is a Teachers TrainingCourse which was regulated entirely and exclusively by NCTEAct and the Regulations framed therein. First thing which follows,therefore, is that mere conferment of Deemed University statusdid not entitle this University to give BTC degrees to its students.[Paras 28, 29] [594-E-H; 595-A-B]

1.2 A University was granted permission by the NCTE tostart two years BTC Course vide letter dated 16.8.2005. However,this was subject to fulfillment of the conditions mentioned therein.These conditions are summarised by the High Court, in thejudgment. The High Court has concluded that many of the saidconditions were not fulfilled by the Deemed University whichposition could not be disputed inasmuch as non–compliance wasadmitted in the supplementary affidavit filed before the HighCourt. [Paras 30, 31] [595-B-C; 596-D]

1.3 The gravamen of the charge is that the very conditionswhich were laid down by the NCTE in giving the recognition havenot been fulfilled. Merely because the college was conferred thestatus of Deemed University, these conditions did not cease toapply as BTC is not one of the degrees mentioned in the degreesspecified by the UGC in the Official Gazette and that insofar asBTC is concerned, it would still be governed by the NCTE Actand regulations. It would be pertinent to mention here that theDeemed University has later on fulfilled the conditions and gotrecognition from NCTE in respect of BTC Course itself but ithas happened only from the year 2012 onwards. Insofar as issueof non–fulfillment of conditions is concerned, the High Court hasrightly pointed out that it more or less stands admitted by theDeemed University in its supplementary affidavit. [Para 32–34][597-H; 598-B-D]

BC

DE

FG

H

A1.4 The submission that since the policy of fulfilling theconditions was set aside by the Single Judge of the High Courtand this decision was affirmed by the Division Bench, it no moreremained an obligation upon Deemed University to fulfill thoseconditions cannot be accepted. On this very aspect, the HighCourt in the impugned judgment had rightly pointed out that aBdirection was issued requiring the State Government to formulatea policy and not to create any impediment of running a BTCCourse by private institutions also, who fulfill the normsprescribed by NCTE. Thus, fulfillment of norms prescribed byNCTE was necessary. The Division Bench has clarified that mereCgrant of permission by NCTE does not amount to automaticaffiliation for running the BTC Course, until and unless theinstitution fulfills the norms which are prescribed by the NCTE.This Deemed University had also admitted in its counter affidavitfiled before the High Court that the State Government, in termsof the Division Bench took a policy decision to grant recognition/Daffiliations to private institutions also for imparting training ofBTC Course under Government order. As a corollary, it followsthat there was no question of granting recognition to the privateinstitutions upto January 15, 2010 for BTC Course in the Stateof Uttar Pradesh. As this was the legal position prevailing, coupledEwith the fact that the Deemed University approached the NCTE/SCERT for recognition of BTC Course and is given the saidrecognition only from the year 2012 onwards, the admission ofstudents in BTC Course for the Academic Sessions i.e. 2008-09and 2009-10 was not permissible and such degrees cannot betreated as validly recognised. It may be harsh for the studentsFwho took admission in the Academic Sessions 2008-09 and 2009-10. However, the Court cannot countenance the position wherethe unrecognised course is given imprimatur of validity only onthe ground of equity. Because of this reason itself, the High Courthas awarded compensation to the students. It is not possible toGaccede to the request of the Deemed University to waive theorder of compensation made by the High Court. [Para 35, 36][598-E-H; 599-A-D]

State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar ShikshanShastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 1 : [2006]H3 SCR 638;State of U.P. & Ors. v. Furqan Ali & Ors.

2011 (1) ADJ 480;Maa Vaishno Devi MahilaMahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2013)2 SCC 617 : [2012] 13 SCR 810 ;State of Rajasthan v.LBS B.Ed. College & Ors.(2016) 16 SCC 110 : [2016]5SCR 298;Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limitedv. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors.(2018) 1 SCC 468 –referred to.

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 10677-10678 of 2018

From the Judgment and Order dated 31.03.2017 of the HighCourt of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal Nos. 1877 and 1878of 2012.

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. 10679-10680 and 10681-10682 of 2018.

Rakesh Dwivedi, P. H. Parekh, Sr. Advs., Ms. Sansriti Pathak,T. N. Tripathi, Ms. Mukti Chowdhary, Ramesh Chand Tiwari, AshokKumar Sharma, Deepak Jyoti Ghildiyal, Shashi Kumar D., BimleshKumar Singh, Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Sanjay Singh, Rajeev Singh,Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Ms. Saumya, Tanmaya Agarwal, Upendra Mishra,Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, Advs. for the appearing parties..

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

A. K. SIKRI, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of impugned common judgment andorder dated March 31, 2017 in Special Appeal No. 1877 of 2012 andSpecial Appeal No. 1878 of 2012 passed by the High Court of Judicatureat Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57527 of 2010 (ShashiKumar Dwivedi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) connected with Civil A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AMisc. Writ Petition No. 493 of 2012 (Chandra Prakash Kanyakubj &Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.).

3. The first petition i.e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57527 of2010 was filed by the students who were admitted to two years BasicTeachers Certificate Course (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BTC’BCourse) in the Academic Session 2008-09 in Nehru Gram BharatiUniversity (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Deemed University’) forquashing of the order dated July 14, 2010 passed by the Director, StateCouncil of Educational Research and Training (hereinafter referred toas the ‘SCERT’) and further for a direction upon the SCERT to recognisethe BTC Course and the certificates granted by the Deemed UniversityCas legal and valid for selection and appointments as teachers inParishadiya Vidyalayas/Junior Basic Schools.

4. Another petition i.e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 493 of 2012was filed by the students who were admitted by the same DeemedUniversity for two years BTC Course in the Academic Session 2009-10.DThe relief prayed for in this petition was more or less identical to the onein Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57527 of 2010.

5. These writ petitions were dismissed by the single Judge of theHigh Court. Thereagainst, intra-court appeals were filed. The DivisionBench, under the impugned judgment dated March 31, 2017, hasEdismissed the Special Appeals holding that the Deemed University wasnot legally authorised to start the BTC Course for the Academic Session2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively in the absence of strict compliance ofthe letter of recognition dated August 16, 2005 as also in view of ithaving itself asked for recognition from the examining body, i.e. State/FSCERT and recognition, in fact, was granted under the letter dated May29, 2013 for the Academic Session 2012-13. However, the Division Benchtook into account the plight of the students caused due to negligence onthe part of the Deemed University and, therefore, directed that eachrespondent-student be paid Rs.50,000/- by the Deemed University inaddition to refund of the entire fee which was paid for the two yearsGBTC Course in 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. The Division Benchalso directed that the money be paid through account payee chequewithin two months from the date of the judgment.

6. Facts in short relevant for deciding the present appeals are asfollows:H

6. Facts in short relevant for deciding the present appeals are asfollows:H

Rajiv Gandhi Post Graduate College, Kotwa, Jamunipur,Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Post Graduate College’) wasestablished by the Society, duly registered under the provisions of theSocieties Registration Act, 1860 in the name and style of Nehru GramBharati. It was a Post Graduate College affiliated to Chhatrapati ShahuJi Maharaj University, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KanpurUniversity’). The Post Graduate College made an application beforethe NCTE for grant of recognition for starting two years BTC Courseunder the provisions of NCTE Act. The North Regional Committee ofNCTE vide its letter dated August 16, 2005 granted permission to thePost Graduate College under Section 15(3) of the NCTE Act for startingtwo years BTC Course subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditionsas contained in the said letter. It is admitted on record that the PostGraduate College did not take requisite steps for complying with theterms and conditions as mentioned in the permission letter dated August16, 2005 for years together.

7. It so happened that the Central Government vide notificationdated June 27, 2008 declared the Post Graduate College as a DeemedUniversity with the change of name as Nehru Gram Bharati DeemedUniversity. The College was deaffiliated from the Kanpur University.The Deemed University made a request to the North Regional Committeeto change the name of the institution as mentioned in the permissionletter dated August 16, 2005. Such change in name was granted by theNorth Regional Committee and communicated to the Deemed Universityvide its letter dated December 02, 2008. The Deemed University is statedto have published an advertisement inviting applications for admission totwo years BTC Course for the Academic Session 2008-09 and similarlyissued advertisement for the Academic Session 2009-10.

8. While the Deemed University started its process of admissionto BTC Course, it simultaneously entered into correspondence withSCERT to grant recognition to said two years BTC Course offered bythe Deemed University as the same was reflected through the letterdated February 10, 2010 forwarded by the Deemed University to SCERTwith a request to approve the two years BTC Course and include thename of the Deemed University in the list of approved institutions sothat the students with BTC certificate granted by the Deemed Universityhad no difficulty in employment as Assistant Teachers in Junior BasicSchools. One of the students is also stated to have sent similar request A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ato SCERT. He was informed by the Director, SCERT vide letter datedJuly 14, 2010 that his papers were being returned as they did not concernSCERT. This led to the filing of two writ petitions mentioned below:

(a) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57527 of 2010 was filed by some of thecandidates who were admitted to the two years BTC Course in theBAcademic Session 2008-09 in the Deemed University for quashing theorder dated July 14, 2010 passed by the Director, SCERT and for adirection upon the SCERT to recognize the BTC Course and thecertificates awarded by the Deemed University.

(b) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 493 of 2010 was filed by some of theCcandidates who had been granted admission by the Deemed Universityto the BTC Course in the next Academic Session 2009-10 and the reliefclaimed was for a direction upon the respondents to recognize the BTCCertificate awarded by the Deemed University so that the candidatescan be considered eligible for appointment as Assistant Teachers in theJunior Basic Schools.D

9. It is the case of the appellants that once the University acquiredthe status of Deemed University, it became an ‘examining body’ underSection 2(d) of the NCTE Act. Section 2(d) of the NCTE Act definesan ‘examining body’ to mean a University, agency or authority to whichan authority is affiliated for conducting examination in teacher educationEqualification. The plea is that since it is a Deemed University and itconducts its own examination, there was no need to seek affiliation fromany other agency. It is also pointed out that the State had taken a policydecision dated September 21, 2006 not to permit private institutions torun the BTC Course. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad videFjudgment dated July 31, 2009 upheld the single Judge’s decision datedMay 08, 2007 striking down the State Government’s policy, and held thatpolicy makers are under an obligation to formulate a policy that is inconsonance with the law of the land and that there was no rational basisfor the monopoly of training teachers created by the State Government.

G10. It may also be mentioned at this stage that on application bythe Deemed University, the State Government vide Government orderdated May 29, 2013, granted recognition to the BTC Course offered bythe Deemed University from the Academic Session 2012-13. This orderof recognition was, however, modified vide Government order datedJuly 07, 2014 and it was provided that in place of Academic SessionH

2012-13 for the purposes of recognition of BTC Course, the same maybe read as Academic Session 2010-11 onwards. The Government orderdated July 07, 2014 has since been revoked under the Government orderdated September 27, 2016. These Government orders dated May 29,2013, July 07, 2014 and September 27, 2016 were not subject matter ofchallenge before the High Court.

11. On behalf of the students, the basic contention raised beforethe Court was that once permission was granted under Section 15(3) ofthe NCTE Act in favour of the Post Graduate College which wassubsequently converted into a Deemed University for starting of thetwo years BTC Course, the issue of seeking affiliation/recognition fromthe examining body became redundant after issuance of the notificationdated June 27, 2008 whereby the Post Graduate College was declaredas a Deemed University. It was contended that the Deemed Universityhas a right to conduct its own examination, therefore, no approval isrequired from any authority for conduct the examinations in respect oftwo years BTC Course offered by the Deemed University subsequentto the notification dated June 27, 2008 and in view of the law laid downby this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sant DnyaneshwarShikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors.[1] as also in view of theDivision Bench judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabadin Special Appeal No. 1639 of 2007 (State of U.P. & Ors. v. Dau DayalMahila P.G. College & Ors.) decided on July 31, 2009 and in the caseof State of U.P. & Ors. v. Furqan Ali & Ors.[2].

12. The claim set up by the students was opposed by the State ofUttar Pradesh through its Advocate General. With reference to thenotification dated June 27, 2008 itself, it was submitted that the DeemedUniversity could offer only such courses as were being offeredimmediately before the conferment of the status of the DeemedUniversity or alike courses thereto. Deemed University could awarddegrees only for conventional/general degree programs leading to B.A./B.SC./B.Com or M.A./M.Sc. degrees covered under Section 22(3) ofthe Universities Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred toas the ‘UGC Act’). On behalf of the State, it was explained that BTCCourse is not a Degree Course nor a course recognized by the UniversitiesGrants Commission (UGC). Therefore, merely because the Post 1 (2006) 9 SCC 1

2 2011 (1) ADJ 480

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AGraduate College has been declared as a Deemed University, it cannotbe presumed that it gets a right to act as an examining body for BTCCourse, which is not provided for or taken care of under the UGC Act.

13. Learned Single Judge vide its common judgment dated October11, 2012 held that it was not possible for the Court to grant the relief asBhas been prayed for. Referring to the provisions of Sections 2, 3 and 4of the Guidelines framed by the UGC under the UGC Act and to thegrant of status of Deemed University and clause 1 of the notificationdated June 27, 2008, it was held that in view of Section 22, a Universitycan only grant such degrees which have been specified by the UGC inthe Official Gazette and that BTC is not one of the degrees mentionedCtherein. With reference to the provisions of NCTE Act and Regulationsof 2007, it was held the College, even after grant of permission by theNorth Regional Committee of the NCTE, kept silent and did not takesteps for starting two years BTC course for long duration and afterconfirmation of the status of the Deemed University, invited applicationsDfor the Academic Session 2008-09 and similarly for 2009-10. DeemedUniversity cannot act as an examining body for the BTC Course and ithad to obtain necessary permission from the examining body, namely,SCERT which was the examining body for the BTC course. It wasfurther held that the candidates were not possessed of a BTC certificatefrom an institution having due authority of law to be the examining bodyEfor the course, therefore, such certificates did not make them eligible forappointment as Assistant Teacher in Junior High Schools.

14. Aggrieved students filed Special Appeals before Division Benchof the High Court. As noted above, the High Court, vide its impugnedjudgment dated March 31, 2017, has dismissed the appeals and affirmedFthe judgment of the learned Single Judge and directed the Post GraduateCollege to refund the fees of the students and also to pay a sum ofRs.50,000/- to each student. It has further directed that it is open for theconcerned authority of University to take appropriate action against allthose responsible for creating the situation and to recover the moneyGlost due to payment to the students.

15. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the HighCourt has rested its decision on the premise that non-compliance ofstatutory conditions is more or less admitted. Further, mere grant ofpermission by NCTE does not amount to automatic affiliation for runningHthe BTC Course, until and unless the institution fulfills the norms which

are prescribed by the NCTE. The High Court also noted that it wasvirtually admitted that formalities required for admission from theexamining body have not been completed and it is only now that BTCCourse is running as per the norms of NCTE. The High Court has alsoobserved that, on the one hand, the Deemed University claimed thatafter conferment of the status of Deemed University upon the PostGraduate College, it became the examining body for all courses includingBTC Course, but, on the other hand, it continued to write letters to theDirector, SCERT to grant recognition to the certificate issued by it andto include the name of the University in the list of approved institutionsfor the purpose of treating its certificate to be a valid qualification forappointment as Assistant Teachers in Junior High Schools recognisedunder the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1978. In nutshell, the High Courthas held that mere grant of permission by NCTE does not amount toautomatic affiliation for running the BTC Course, until and unless theinstitution fulfills the norms which are prescribed by the NCTE. Therefore,there was no question of any recognition being granted to a privateinstitution upto January 15, 2010 for the BTC Course in the State ofUttar Pradesh. Since the Deemed University was not legally authorisedto start the BTC Course for the Academic Sessions 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively, in the absence of strict compliance of letter of recognitiondated August 16, 2005 as also in view of having itself asked forrecognition from the examining body, the BTC Course for these twosessions could not be treated as recognised.

16. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing forthe Deemed University, reiterated the submission which was raised beforethe High Court, namely, once it was granted deemed status, it becamean examining body by itself by virtue of Section 2(n) and Section 2(d) ofthe NCTE Act. It was submitted that Section 22 of the UGC Act givesright to a Deemed University to confer degrees which would imply thatsuch Deemed University would itself become an examining body byvirtue of Section 2(n) and Section 2(d) of the NCTE Act as the degreecan be awarded only by the examining body. It was also submitted thatthe NCTE Act is a complete and exhaustive code for teachers educationand is made by Parliament with respect to Entry 66 List I read withEntry 25 List III. It lays down all norms and standards includingqualification for teachers and curriculum. Only examinations are to beconducted by Universities or competent authority established by the State.So far as Universities are concerned, they hold examinations for their AB

CDE

F

G

H

AB

CDE

F

G

H

Astudents themselves and need no affiliation. Even where an institutionseeks affiliation from State’s competent authority, the said authoritycannot have a relook at matters which are considered by NCTE whilegranting recognition to the institution or course. Mr. Dwivedi alsosubmitted that the NCTE Regulations of 2009 which were notified videnotification dated August 31, 2009 could not be applied in this case asBDeemed University was granted recognition by NCTE on August 16,2005. He submitted that relevant regulations which were applicable onthat date were of the year 2002 known as NCTE (Form of applicationfor recognition, the time limit of submission of application, determinationof norms and standards for recognition of teacher education programmesCand permission to start new course or training) Regulations, 2002(hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations, 2002). The Regulations, 2002were repealed by NCTE (Recognition, Norms and Procedure)Regulations, 2005 dated December 27, 2005. However, action alreadytaken under the Regulations, 2002 were protected and saved by Regulation11(2) of the Regulations, 2005. He submitted that the Regulations, 2002Dcontemplated an NOC from the State Government at a pre-recognitionstage vide Regulation 6. Sub-clause (x) of this Regulation dispensedwith the requirement of NOC with regard to institutions alreadyrecognized by NCTE for running a B.Ed. course. Admittedly, the DeemedUniversity was running B.Ed. when recognition for BTC course wasEgiven. Therefore, the said requirement did not apply to the DeemedUniversity. However, this requirement of NOC has been held by thisCourt to be immaterial and irrelevant, so far as the power of NCTE isconcerned, in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya:

“63. In the instant case, admittedly, Parliament has enacted theF1993 Act, which is in force. The preamble of the Act providesfor establishment of National Council for Teacher Education(NCTE) with a view to achieving planned and coordinateddevelopment of the teacher-education system throughout thecountry, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms andstandards in the teacher-education system and for mattersGconnected therewith. With a view to achieving that object, theNational Council for Teacher Education has been established atfour places by the Central Government. It is thus clear that thefield is fully and completely occupied by an Act of Parliamentand covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII. It is, therefore,Hnot open to the State Legislature to encroach upon the said field.

Parliament alone could have exercised the power by makingappropriate law. In the circumstances, it is not open to the StateGovernment to refuse permission relying on a State Act or on“policy consideration.

64. Even otherwise, in our opinion, the High Court was fullyjustified in negativing the argument of the State Government thatpermission could be refused by the State Government on “policyconsideration”. As already observed earlier, policy considerationwas negatived by this Court in Thirumuruga Kirupananda Trust[(1996) 3 SCC 15 : JT (1996) 2 SC 692] as also in Jaya GokulEducational Trust [(2000) 5 SCC 231 : JT (2000) 5 SC 118].

xxxx

xx

68. In view of the fact, however, that according to us, the finalauthority lies with NCTE and we are supported in taking thatview by various decisions of this Court, NCTE cannot be deprivedof its authority or power in taking an appropriate decision underthe Act irrespective of absence of no-objection certificate bythe State Government/Union Territory. Absence or non-productionof NOC by the institution, therefore, was immaterial andirrelevant so far as the power of NCTE is concerned.”

17. On this count, submission of Mr. Dwivedi was that the presentmatters does not concern with this aspect since the said provision dealswith a pre-recognition stage and whereas these cases related to affiliationwhich is post-recognition stage. The learned senior counsel also referredto the judgments of this Court in Maa Vaishno Devi MahilaMahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.[3] and State ofRajasthan v. LBS B.Ed. College & Ors.[4].

18. Dealing with the issue of non-compliance with the conditionscontained in the recognition letter issued by NCTE, Mr. Dwivedi arguedthat it is an erroneous finding. In this behalf, his submission was that, inthe first instance, the conditions contained in the letter dated August 16,2005 of NCTE were to be complied ‘before the commencement of theacademic session’. The Deemed University had commenced its BTCCourse only in the year 2008 and, therefore, question of complying theseconditions before 2008, in any case, did not arise. Secondly, this policy 3 (2013) 2 SCC 617

4 (2016) 16 SCC 110

A

BC

D

EF

G

H

Aof fulfilling the conditions ceased to apply to this University once it obtainthe status of Deemed University. Thirdly, this policy was set aside bythe High Court (by the single Judge vide judgment dated May 08, 2007which was affirmed by the Division Bench on July 31, 2009). Therefore,argued the learned senior counsel, by the time University commencedBTC Course in 2008, there were no such conditions which remained toBbe complied. Mr. Dwivedi also argued that so far as faculty is concerned,Deemed University through its Additional Registrar had written a letterto NCTE on July 22, 2009 submitting a list of faculty members for BTC,B.Ed. and M.Ed. along with minutes of selection committee dated August14, 2008 selecting seven teachers. These appointments were approvedCby Board of Management vide resolution dated August 25, 2008 pursuantto which appointment letters were issued which are also placed on record.It is also important to state here that the seven faculty members whowere appointed were already teaching in the B.Ed. course run by thepredecessor of the Deemed University. The appellant also maintainedregular attendance register which shows that the teachers were, in fact,Dteaching. Similarly, vide letter dated July 28, 2010, details of existingfaculty members were sent to NCTE 2009. Even the inspection reportof the UGC Committee which was accepted by UGC on November 19,2009 stated that appointment of teachers were made by following therules and norms of UGC and regulatory bodies from time to time. It alsoEnoted that, by and large, the University had adequate and qualified faculty.The representative of NCTE was satisfied with the professionaldevelopment of the teachers. In view of the above material, it is incorrectto state that the Deemed University did not appoint faculty and thatthere was non-compliance by the Deemed University.

F19. As regards the Endowment Fund, argument is that the sum ofRs.5 lakhs in the form of Fixed Deposit was, in fact, deposited with theNCTE on February 19, 2004 itself and renewed from time to time but itwas to be converted into a joint account on October 28, 2015. It iscontended that it is an admitted position that the amount of Rs.5 lakhstowards the endowment fund was deposited by the University and theGFixed Deposits have also been annexed in the Additional Affidavit. Inview thereof, there is substantial compliance by the Deemed Universityand non-conversion into a joint account is only a minor lapse and eventhe NCTE did not object to the same. This cannot be a ground for denyingrecognition of BTC Course to students of the Academic Sessions 2008-09Hand 2009-10.

20. Mr. Dwivedi pleaded, in the alternative, that in the event thisCourt is pleased to hold that the University required to seek affiliationfrom State, the direction to refund the fees and pay further amount ofRs.50,000/- may be set aside since it involves a huge cost of above onecrore. It was stated that the University is catering to rural masses andsuch a direction will cause grave hardship. Moreover, the present is nota case where the course was being run without recognition of NCTE.

21. Mr. Parekh, learned senior counsel appearing for the students,while supporting the arguments raised by Mr. Dwivedi, additionally arguedthat the Deemed University was not required to seek affiliation underSection 16 of the Act as it was declared as deemed-to-be-Universityunder Section 2(f) of the UGC Act as per notification dated June 27,2008 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human ResourceDevelopment, Department of Higher Education published in Gazette ofIndia, Part-I. Therefore, it was eligible to conduct its own examinationsand grant its own degrees. He also referred to Section 17 of the NCTEAct which, according to him, protects the interest of the students. Onthat basis, his submission was that as the students had undertaken twoyears course and had been declared successful after clearing examination,it is not permissible for the State to punish the students. In equity also,nothing is attributed against the students and their career should notaffected when they have acted on the recognition given by Section15(3)(a) to the University. Under these circumstances, students areentitled for recognition of their BTC certificate in law. Mr. Parekh alsosubmitted that insofar as students are concerned, in any case, they areentitled to the relief because of subsequent development, namely, UPGazette No. 210/79-5-2018-105-2014 dated February 08, 2018, thesubstituted Rule No. 8 inter alia provides as under:

“…two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatevername known) in accordance with National Council of TeacherEducation (Recognition, Norms and Procedure), Regulations orany training qualifications to be added by National Council forTeacher Education for the recruitment of teachers in PrimaryEducation...”

22. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradeshrefuted the aforesaid submissions of the Deemed University as well asstudents. He drew the attention of the Court to notification dated June27, 2008 vide which University was granted status of ‘deemed-to-be- A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Auniversity’ under Section 3 of the UGC Act for a period of three yearswith effect from the date on which the college is deaffiliated from itsaffiliating university, namely, Kanpur University. He also pointed out thatit was subject to the condition that the status conferred would be reviewedby UGC with the help of expert committee before the expiry of threeyears period. Further contention was that:B

“The status shall be confirmed only on the basis of the inspectionand assessment report of UGC’s Expert Review Committee andsubjected to nullification of its present short coming as pointedout by the Expert Committee.”

C23. He also pointed out that copy of this notification was forwardedto various authorities including President, Nehru Gram Bharati. Whilemaking endorsement to the President, Nehru Gram Bharati, it wasmentioned that the notification would be further subject to conditionswhich were specifically mentioned therein. As many as 14 conditionswere stipulated. Conditions (v), (vi) and (vii) which are relevant for theDpurpose of this case is reproduced below:

“(v) The academic programmes being offered or to be offeredby Nehru Gram Bharati will conform to the norms and standardsprescribed by the relevant Statutory Councils such as the UGC,AICTE etc. Nehru Gram Bharati shall not offer/award as theEcase may be any degrees that are not specified by the UGC.Nehru Gram Bharati shall also ensure that the nomenclatures ofthe degrees, etc. to be awarded by it are specified by the UGCunder Section 22 of the UGC Act, 1956.

(vi) Nehru Gram Bharati shall not start new academic courseswithout obtaining prior approval of Ministry of Health and FamilyWelfare and/or the concerned Statutory Councils such as MCI,AICTE etc. as the case may be.

F

(vii) Nehru Gram Bharati, as a deemed-to-be-university shallaward degrees in respect of the courses run by the institutionmentioned in para 4 of this notification only to those studentswho are admitted subsequent to the date of this notification.Accordingly, it shall make admission and enrolment of studentsto the academic courses of the said college under it (i.e. underNehru Gram Bharati only with effect from the ensuing academicyear (i.e. from 2008-2009).”

G

H

24. From the aforesaid conditions, the argument of the learnedcounsel was that the Deemed University was specifically required toconform to the norms and standards prescribed by relevant statutorycouncils. It was also categorically mentioned that the Deemed Universityshall not offer/award any degrees that are not specified by the UGC.Moreover, it was to ensure that the nomenclature of the degrees etc. tobe awarded by it are specified by the UGC under Section 22 of theUGC Act. Based on the aforesaid conditions specified in the notifications,argument of the learned counsel was that the Deemed University failedto fulfill those conditions which has been recorded by the High Court aswell. He submitted that the judgment of the High Court is correct aswithout the fulfillment of these conditions, it was not open to the DeemedUniversity to start such a course and confer the degrees. Learned counselreferred to the judgment in the case of Orissa Lift IrrigationCorporation Limited v. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors.[5].

25. Taking the aforesaid argument further, he submitted that theDeemed University has itself stated in the writ petition filed before theHigh Court that BTC Course is a Teacher Training Programme forprimary level school and NCTE grants the recognition to the TeacherTraining Programme. The right to formulate the guidelines/standardswith reference to courses run in the teacher education training institutions,such as the procedure for admission of the students in such institutions,minimum qualifications for the admission, period of the TrainingProgramme and the determination of the course, is done by the NCTE.After the recognition is obtained from NCTE, Section 14(6) of the NCTEAct stipulates that every examining body, on receipt of the order undersub-section (4) thereof, shall grant affiliation to the institution whererecognition has been granted. Further, the appendix 1 to 13 about thenorms and standards of different Teacher Training Programmes hasbeen mentioned in para 9 of the notification dated August 31, 2009 ofNCTE. Appendix 2 is related to the course of D.El.Ed. in the aforesaidand the provision has been made in Point 1 of Appendix 2:

“(1) The aim of elementary education is to fulfill the basic learningneeds of all children in an inclusive school environment bridgingsocial and gender gaps with the active participation of thecommunity. The program aims at preparing teachers forelementary stage of education that is Classes 1 to VII/VIII.

5 (2018) 1 SCC 468

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(2) The elementary teacher education programme carriesdifferent nomenclatures like BTC Diploma in Education, TTCand so on. Both the duration of training and entry qualificationof the course are same, hence, nomenclature of the course shallbe same (D.El.Ed.) across all states. The copy of Appendix 2 ismarked and annexed herewith as Annexure CA-06.”B26. He also sought sustenance from the following provision thathas been made about the admission in Point 3(3) of Appendix – 2mentioned above:

“...Admissions shall be made on merit on the basis of marksCobtained in the qualifying examination and/or in the entranceexamination or any other selection process as per the policy ofthe State Government/UT Administration.”

27. The argument on the basis of the aforesaid provision was thatthe admission had to be made not only on merits but ‘as per the policy ofDthe State Government/UT Administration’. Here, according to learnedcounsel, the Deemed University faltered and, therefore, cannot seekany benefit. The counsel for the NCTE supported the aforesaidsubmissions put forth by the learned counsel for the State.

28. From the aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel for theEappellants as well as Deemed University, it becomes clear that the entirecase primarily rests upon the submission that after it became DeemedUniversity by virtue of notification dated June 27, 2008 issued by UGCunder Section 3 of the UGC Act, Deemed University had right to holdexaminations on its own as it became the ‘examining body’ for BTCCourse. However, as noticed above, notification dated June 27, 2008Fgranting status of Deemed University was subject to certain conditions.Section 22 of UGC Act gives right upon such Deemed University toconfer degrees. However, sub-section (3) thereof defines the meaningof degree under that provision which reads as under:

“(3) For the purposes of this section, “degree’ means any suchGdegree as may, with the previous approval of the CentralGovernment, be specified in this behalf by the Commission bynotification in the Official Gazette.”

29. It is clear that the right which was given to the DeemedUniversity to confer degrees pertain to those degrees which are specifiedHby the UGC in the Official Gazette. Admittedly, BTC is not one of the degrees mentioned therein. The reason is obvious. Insofar as BTC isconcerned, it is a Teachers Training Course which was regulated entirelyand exclusively by NCTE Act and the Regulations framed therein. Firstthing which follows, therefore, is that mere conferment of DeemedUniversity status did not entitle this University to give BTC degrees toits students. Having regard to the same, the judgments cited by Mr.Dwivedi will have no application to the present case.

30. This brings us to the provisions of NCTE Act and Regulationstherein. A University was granted permission by the NCTE to start twoyears BTC Course vide letter dated August 16, 2005. However, thiswas subject to fulfillment of eight conditions mentioned therein. Theseconditions are summarised by the High Court, in the impugned judgment,which reads as under:

“Condition ‘a’ required appointment of the faculty membersand staff duly qualified as per the norms of NCTE/StateGovernment/SCERT to be completed before the commencementof the course. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time SCERTwas the examining body for the BTC course. Therefore, it wasbut necessary for the Post Graduate Degree College to haveappointed qualified teachers and staff as per the SCERT normsread with NCTE norms.

Under clause ‘b’ countersigned statement of facultymembers from the Director, SCERT was required to be submittedbefore the commencement of the academic session.

Under clause ‘c’ the institution had to agree to adhere to allother regulations and guidelines as framed by NCTE from timeto time.

Under clause ‘d’ the institution had to within one month ofthe receipt of Recognition order, convert the Endowment Fundaccount into a Joint Account in the form of FDR for a period ofnot less than 60 months (five years) in a Nationalized Bank onlyto be operated along with an official of the Regional Committee.

Under clause ‘e’ the Reserve Fund for an amount equalantto three months salary of the Teachers & Staff had to be createdwithin one month from the date of issuance of the letter andmaintained in the form of FDR in favour of the management/

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ainstitution, for a period not less than sixty months (five years) ina Nationalized Bank.

Under clause ‘f’ prior permission of the competent authorityfor conducting the entrance exam and approval of the curriculumfor the course had to be obtained.

B

Under clause ‘g’ it is specified that in case the institutionstarts the training programme without prior permission of thecompetent authority/examining body regarding the curriculumthey have adopted and conducts examination for award ofDiploma/certificate the recognition of such institution shall bewithdrawn.

C

Under clause ‘h’ it was specified that non-compliance ofthe above mentioned conditions shall cause action under section17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993.”

31. The High Court has concluded that many of the aforesaidDconditions were not fulfilled by the Deemed University which positioncould not be disputed even before us inasmuch as non-compliance wasadmitted in the supplementary affidavit filed before the High Court.Discussion in the impugned judgment in this behalf reads as under:

“Paragraph 4 contemplated that recognition is subject toEfulfillment of all such other requirements as may be prescribedby other regulatory bodies like SCERT/State Government etc.The institution was obliged to submit a Self-Appraisal Report atthe end of each academic year along with a copy of the approvalof affiliating body/State Directorate of Education. It was againFreiterated that any violation of the above mentioned conditionsor of the NCTE Act would result in withdrawal of the recognitionunder the provisions of NCTE Act.

E

Such non-compliance of the statutory conditions is more orless admitted in paragraph 5 to 9 of the supplementary affidavitfiled by the Deemed University dated 5.10.2016. It is stated thatGunder the policy decision of the State of U.P., private collegeswere not given recognition for running of BTC course despitethere being permission by the NCTE. The issue in that regardcame to be settled under the judgment of the Division Bench ofthis Court dated 31.07.2009 wherein a direction was issued H

requiring the State Government to formulate a policy and not tocreate any impediment in running of BTC course by privateinstitutions also who fulfill the norms prescribed by NCTE.

It is needless to emphasize that under the same DivisionBench judgment, it has clarified that mere grant of permissionby NCTE does not amount to automatic affiliation for runningthe BTC course, until and unless the institution fulfills the normswhich are prescribed by the NCTE.

From paragraph 9 of the short counter affidavit of DeemedUniversity, it is admitted that the State Government in terms ofthe Division Bench judgment of this court took a policy decisionto grant recognition/affiliation to private institutions also forimparting training of BTC course under Government Order dated15.01.2010.

What logically follows is that the question of any recognitionbeing granted to a private institution up to 15.01.2010 for theBTC course in the State of U.P. does not arise.

It is further admitted by the Deemed University in paragraph20 of the same affidavit that during the transition period I.e.between 2005 to 2008, formalities as required for recognitionfrom the examining body had not been completed and now BTCcourse is being run as per the norms of NCTE. In paragraph 21of the same affidavit, it is admitted that teachers were dulyappointed in 2010 and onwards and entrance examination of thestudents was conducted after making advertisement in thenewspaper.”

32. Mr. Dwivedi has tried to argue that insofar as this Universityis concerned, Regulations, 2002 applied and not Regulations, 2009. Hehas submitted that Regulation 6 of Regulations, 2002 contemplated anNOC from the State Government at a pre-condition stage and sub-clause(x) of this regulation dispense with the requirement of NOC with regardto institution already recognised by NCTE for running a B.Ed. Course.This argument, according to us, is totally extraneous. The case of therespondents is not about non-fulfillment of conditions contained inRegulations, 2009 or Regulations, 2005. As noticed above, the gravamenof the charge is that the very conditions which were laid down by theNCTE in giving the recognition have not been fulfilled.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A33. Conscious of this fact, attempt was also made by Mr. Dwivedito project that the findings of the High Court about the non-compliancewith the conditions contained in the recognition letter issued by NCTE isan erroneous finding. We have already held above that merely becausethe college was conferred the status of Deemed University, theseconditions did not cease to apply as BTC is not one of the degreesBmentioned in the degrees specified by the UGC in the Official Gazetteand that insofar as BTC is concerned, it would still be governed by theNCTE Act and regulations. It would be pertinent to mention here thatthe Deemed University has later on fulfilled the conditions and gotrecognition from NCTE in respect of BTC Course itself but it hasChappened only from the year 2012 onwards.

A

34. It hardly needs to be re-emphasised that insofar as issue ofnon-fulfillment of conditions is concerned, the High Court has rightlypointed out that it is more or less stands admitted by the DeemedUniversity in its supplementary affidavit dated October 5, 2016.D

35. We also do not agree with the contention of Mr. Dwivedi thatsince the policy of fulfilling the conditions was set aside by the singleJudge of the High Court vide judgment dated May 8, 2007 and this decisionwas affirmed by the Division Bench on July 31, 2009, it no more remainedan obligation upon Deemed University to fulfill those conditions. On thisEvery aspect, the High Court in the impugned judgment had rightly pointedout that in the aforesaid judgment dated July 31, 2009 rendered by theDivision Bench of the High Court, a direction was issued requiring theState Government to formulate a policy and not to create any impedimentof running a BTC Course by private institutions also, who fulfill the normsprescribed by NCTE. Thus, fulfillment of norms prescribed by NCTEFwas necessary. The impugned judgment also points out that the DivisionBench in the aforesaid judgment dated July 31, 2009 has clarified thatmere grant of permission by NCTE does not amount to automaticaffiliation for running the BTC Course, until and unless the institutionfulfills the norms which are prescribed by the NCTE. This DeemedGUniversity had also admitted in its counter affidavit filed before the HighCourt that the State Government, in terms of the Division Bench judgmentdated July 31, 2009, took a policy decision to grant recognition/affiliationsto private institutions also for imparting training of BTC Course underGovernment order dated January 15, 2010. As a corollary, it followsthat there was no question of granting recognition to the private institutions H

upto January 15, 2010 for BTC Course in the State of Uttar Pradesh.As this was the legal position prevailing, coupled with the fact that theDeemed University approached the NCTE/SCERT for recognition ofBTC Course and is given the said recognition only from the year 2012onwards, the admission of students in BTC Course for the AcademicSessions i.e. 2008-09 and 2009-10 was not permissible and such degreescannot be treated as validly recognised. It may be harsh for the studentswho took admission in the Academic Sessions 2008-09 and 2009-10.However, the Court cannot countenance the position where theunrecognised course is given imprimatur of validity only on the groundof equity. Because of this reason itself, the High Court has awardedcompensation to the students. Therefore, we find it difficult to agree tothe submissions advanced by Mr. Parekh on behalf of the students aswell.

36. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is not possible to accedeto the request of the Deemed University to waive the order ofcompensation made by the High Court. As a result, all these appealsare bereft of any merit and are accordingly dismissed.

Nidhi Jain Appeals dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H