THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND versus NALANDA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND OTHERS on 10 November 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Division Bench of the HighCourt of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 144/2014, byCwhich the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the SpecialAppeal preferred by the State of Uttarakhand and others and hasconfirmed the judgment and order dated 04.04.2014 passed by the learnedSingle Judge in Writ Petition No.2464 of 2013, by which the learnedSingle Judge quashed the order dated 16.07.2013 of the State Governmentby which the State Government opined/decided not to grant recognitionDto the new B.Ed. Colleges and consequently directed the National Councilfor Teachers Education (for short, ‘NCTE’) to take appropriate decisionon 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 – NalandaECollege of Education, Dehradun (for short, ‘College’) was grantedrecognition for B.Ed. course of one year duration with an annual intakeof 100 students by the NCTE under Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act on22.02.2008. After the recognition, the original writ petitioner was affiliatedto the HNB University under the U.P. State University Act, 1973. ForFthe academic session 2013-14, the College applied to the NorthernRegional Committee of the NCTE to increase the intake seats of thestudents. The opinion of the State Government was sought as per NCTERegulations, 2014. The State Government vide order/communicationdated 16.07.2013 sent its opinion and informed the Northern RegionalCommittee of NCTE that about 13000 students are passing B.Ed. courseGper annum against the need of 2500 teachers and therefore most of thestudents passing B.Ed. course would be unemployed. Consequently, theState Government opined that no fresh recognition be granted undertakingB.Ed. course and also opined to cancel the recognition of respondentNo.1 – original writ petitioner – College. The communication/order datedH

16.07.2013 of the State Government was the subject matter of writ petitionbefore the High Court.

2.1 The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashedand set aside order/communication dated 16.07.2013 of the StateGovernment by observing that the ground that the students after passingB.Ed. course are unemployed and the State Government is not in aposition to grant employment to all of them and therefore institutionsshould be closed is nothing except the arbitrary exercise on the part ofthe State Government. The learned Single Judge also observed that onthe contrary, instead of closing down the institutions, the State Governmentshould promote institutions to come up in the State to provide educationand a welfare State is not supposed to close down the institutions. Thelearned Single Judge directed the Northern Regional Committee to takeappropriate decision on the application of the original writ petitioner toincrease the seats of B.Ed. course. The judgment and order passed bythe learned Single Judge was the subject matter of special appeal beforethe Division Bench. By the impugned judgment and order, the DivisionBench of the High Court has dismissed the special appeal and hasconfirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of theHigh Court dismissing the special appeal and confirming the judgmentand order passed by the learned Single Judge is the subject matter of thepresent appeal.

3. Shri Krishnam Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe appellant – State of Uttarakhand has vehemently submitted that inthe facts and circumstances of the case both, the learned Single Judgeas well as the Division Bench of the High Court have seriously erred inquashing and setting aside the communication/order dated 16.07.2013holding the same as arbitrary.

3.1 It is submitted that a conscious policy decision was taken bythe State Government not to grant recognition to the new Colleges forB.Ed. course and not to increase the intake capacity of the B.Ed. coursefor valid reasons/grounds, the same was not required to be interferedwith by the High Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of theConstitution of India.

3.2 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the State that a conscious policy decision was taken by the AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AState Government reflected in the communication/order dated 16.07.2013taking into consideration the fact that against the need of 2500 teachersper annum, approximately 13000 students would be passing out the B.Ed.course, which ultimately would result into unemployment as the StateGovernment would not be in a position to offer employment to otherpass out students completing B.Ed. course, over and above 2500 students.BIt is submitted that such a decision cannot be said to be in any wayarbitrary, as observed and held by the learned Single Judge, confirmedby the Division Bench. In support of the above submission, reliance isplaced on the decision of this Court in the case of Vidharbha SikshanVyawasthapak Mahasangh v. State of Maharashtra & Others,Creported in (1986) 4 SCC 361 (paragraph 6).

3.3 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the State that even as per NCTE Regulations, before theRegional Committee takes a decision on grant of recognition/increase inthe intake capacity, the opinion of the State Government is must, whichDincludes the detailed reasons or grounds with necessary statistics. It issubmitted that therefore the State Government was well within its rightsin submitting the opinion and/or taking a decision against the recognition,which was with necessary statistics. On the requirement of submittingthe opinion by the State Government on whether to grant recognition ornot which shall be with necessary statistics, reliance is placed on theEdecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Gangadhar andAnother v. Union of India and others, 2009 SCC Online Bom.17(paragraphs 36, 38, 41 & 42).

3.4 Making above submissions and relying upon the aforesaiddecisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeal and quash and setFaside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench aswell as that of the learned Single Judge.

4. Ms. Manisha T. Karia, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe NCTE has supported the appellant – State of Uttarakhand. She hasalso heavily relied upon Rule 7 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, underGwhich the State Government is required to furnish its recommendationsor comments to the Regional Committee before any final decision istaken by the Regional Committee, which shall include to provide detailedreasons or grounds thereof with necessary statistics, in case the StateGovernment opines not in favour of recognition.

H

THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. NALANDA COLLEGE OFEDUCATION AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

4.1 It is submitted that when a conscious decision was taken bythe State Government not to grant further recognition and/or not toincrease the intake capacity along with the detailed reasons or groundsthereof with necessary statistics, considering the fact that against theneed/requirement of 2500 students per annum, approximately 13000students shall pass out the B.Ed. course, which will render themunemployed and the aforesaid can be said to be a valid ground, the HighCourt has committed a serious error in quashing and setting aside such apolicy decision treating the same as arbitrary.

4.2 Learned counsel appearing for the NCTE has also heavilyrelied 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 MaaVaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. The State of Uttar Pradesh& Others, by which this Court has not interfered with the similar decisionof the State Government not to grant further recognition to the newColleges. She has also relied upon the observations made by this Courtin 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 thatunder the NCTE Regulations, the State has a say, may be a limited one,NCTE is required to take the opinion of the State Government intoconsideration, for the State has a vital role to offer proper commentssupported by due reasoning. It is submitted that therefore the NCTEwas required to take into consideration the views/opinion of the StateGovernment contained in the communication/order dated 16.07.2013. Itis submitted that therefore the High Court has committed a serious errorin quashing and setting aside the communication/order dated 16.07.2013which was in the form of a policy decision not to grant further recognitionfor B.Ed. course which was on a valid reasoning and the grounds, inexercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

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

6. We have heard Shri Krishnam Mishra, learned counsel appearingon behalf of the appellant – the State of Uttarakhand and Ms. ManishaT. Karia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NCTE. We havegone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court,by which the High Court has quashed and set aside the policy decisiontaken by the State of Uttarakhand, opining/deciding not to grant recognitionto the new B.Ed. colleges and consequently recommending the NCTE

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ato take an appropriate decision on the application submitted by respondentNo.1 to increase the seats of B.Ed. course. It appears that the StateGovernment vide order/communication dated 16.07.2013 sent its opinionand informed the NCTE that as about 13000 students are passing B.Ed.course every year against the need of 2500 teachers and therefore mostthe students passing B.Ed. course would be unemployed, it isBrecommended not to grant any further recognition to the new B.Ed.colleges. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has setaside the said communication/policy decision terming the same asarbitrary. Therefore, the short question posed for consideration of thisCourt is, “whether the policy decision taken by the State GovernmentCcan be said to be arbitrary which calls for interference of the High Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India?”7. An identical question came to be considered by this Court inthe case of Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh (supra).Before this Court, the challenge was the judgment of the Bombay HighDCourt whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition challengingthe order of the Government of Maharashtra refusing to grant permissionto the member institutions of the original writ petitioner to hold the firstyear classes in Diploma in Education. In the case before this Court, apolicy decision was taken by the State Government not to grant furtherrecommendation to start new D.Ed. colleges, inter alia, on the groundEthat in Nagpur and Bhandara Districts, a large number of applicantsapplied for starting new D.Ed. colleges from time to time. It was foundthat the number of the new D.Ed. colleges started in Nagpur andBhandara Districts is proportionately much larger, about five times morethan the estimated increased need of the two districts and therefore it

Fwas not desirable and feasible to permit the new D.Ed. colleges. It wasthe case of the State that to permit admission of 3000 students everyyear will result in a serious consequence of a large scale unemployment.The High Court dismissed the writ petition which has been confirmed bythis Court by observing that the Government has taken the right decision so as to save the young men from being exploited. This Court alsoGnegatived the contention on behalf of the management that the refusalto grant permission to hold D.Ed. classes will result in unemployment.This Court approved the stand on behalf of the State that if the permissionis granted, there will be a large scale unemployment inasmuch as 3000students will be admitted in the first year classes as against the requirementHof 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 lookingto the requirement of teachers.

8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaiddecision, the High Court has committed a serious error in holding thatthe decision not to recommend for the new B.Ed. colleges can be said tobe arbitrary. At this stage, it is required to be noted that under the provisionsof the NCTE Regulations, the State is well within its right to make suitablerecommendations. As per Rule 7(5) of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, onreceipt of the communication from the office of the Regional Committeeto the State, the State Government is required to send its recommendationsor comments to the Regional Committee. It further provides that in casethe State Government is not in favour of the recommendation, it shallprovide detailed reasons or grounds thereof with necessary statistics,which shall be taken into consideration by the Regional Committeeconcerned while disposing of the application. Therefore, when the StateGovernment is required to provide detailed reasons against grant ofrecognition with necessary statistics, it includes the need and/orrequirement. Therefore, the State Government was well within its rightto recommend and/or opine that the State Government is not in favourof granting further recognition to the new B.Ed. colleges as against theneed of annually 2500 teachers approximately 13000 students would bepassing out every year, therefore, for the remaining students, there willbe unemployment. The aforesaid decision cannot be said to be arbitraryas observed and held by the High Court. The need of the new collegeslooking to the requirement can be said to be a relevant consideration anda decision not to recommend further recognition to the new B.Ed. collegeson the need basis cannot be said to be arbitrary. Under the circumstances,the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court isunsustainable.

9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated10.09.2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in SpecialAppeal No. 144/2014, confirming the judgment and order dated04.04.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2464/2013, quashing the order/communication dated 16.07.2013 of the StateGovernment opining/deciding not to grant recognition to the new B.Ed.colleges and directing the NCTE to take appropriate decision on the AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

68SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Aapplication preferred by respondent No.1 to increase the seats to B.Ed.course, is hereby quashed and set aside. The instant appeal is allowedaccordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

B

Nidhi Jain

Appeal allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H