ABHYUDYA SANSTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

Judgment

7 S.C.R. 611 ABHYUDYA SANSTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4305-06 of 2011) MAY 12, 2011 A B [G.S. SINGHVI AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] Education/Educational Institutions .,... Illegal admissions - Appellant-Educational Institutions filed SLP and made misleading statements before this Court that they were granted C recognition by the Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) and thereafter, obtained interim orders directing the State Government to allot students to the appellant institutions for the D.Ed course - During pendency of SLP, the Regional Committee of the D NCTE refused recognition to the appellant institutions - Held: Appellants are not entitled to the relief under Article 136 - They deserve to be non-suited because they did not approach the Court with clean hands - Though the students were not party to the patently wrong and misleading E statements made by the appellants, butnone of the appellant institutions were granted recognition by the Regional Committee and as such the appellants could not have admitted any students - Thus, there is no valid ground much less justification to confer legitimacy upon the admission F made by the appellants in a clandestine manner - Students who may have taken admission and completed the course from an institution, which had not been granted recognition, would not be able to impart value based education to the future generations of the country - Thus it is not proper to issue direction for regularising the admissions made by the G appellants - The students are not eligible for the award of degree by the affiliating body- Appellants directed to pay Rs. 1 lakh each to the said students by way of compensation - 1 611 H 612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 7 S.C.R. A A/so cost of Rs. 2 lakh imposed on each of the appellants - Costs - Compensation - National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - s. 14 - National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 - Regulations 7 and 8 - Constitution of India, 1950 - B Article 136. Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Relief under - Entitlement for- Appellant Institutions made false statement of facts for seeking relief under Article 136 and obtained interim orders on the basis of misstatements made - Held: C Appellants not entitled to relief under Article 136 - Costs of Rs 2 /akhs imposed - Costs - Administration of justice - Abuse of process of court . . National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - D Object of enactment - Explained. E Appellant-Educational institutions applied for grant of recognition for starting D.Ed. course but in view of the recommendations made by the State Government that there was no requirement of trained teachers in the State, the Regional Committee informed the appellants that their cases would not be processed. However, other educational institutions were issued letter of intent though final recognition was not granted. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by one of the F educational institution. Meanwf'lile, respondent Nos. 6 and 7. filed a writ petition challenging the exercise undertaken by the Regional Committee for grant of recognition to over 290 institutions since it was granted in total disregard of the views of the State Government. G The Division Bench of the High Court quashed the said recognition granted by the Regional Committee. The appellant-educational institutions filed Special Leave Petitions praying for setting aside the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as also filed H applications seeking permission to file Special Leave ABHYUDYA SANSTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 613 Petitions by stating that the orders passed by the High A Court would adversely affect their right to continue the D.Ed. course. 'In the synopsis and list of dates, the appellants made categorical statement that after following the procedure prescribed under the National Council for Teacher ·Education Act, 1993 and the National Council for B Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) granted permission/recognition to them for starting D.Ed. course. The Supreme Court passed interim orders directing the State Government to· c allot students to the appellant institutions for D. Ed course. During the pendency of the Special Leave Petitions, the Regional Committee refused recognition to the appellants. The writ petitions as also appeal filed by the D appellants were rejected. The appellant filed a writ petition before another High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the Regional Committee for processing the applica~ions of the appellants afresh. E The appellants contended before the Supreme Court that they were not granted recognition by the Regional Committee and none of them was eligible to admit students to D.Ed. course, but submitted that the Court F may direct the Regional Co!llmittee to consider their applications for recognition and protect the students who got admission on the basis of allotment made by the State Government; and t.hat the stateme.nts made in the synopsis and list of dates of the SLP about grant ·of G recognition by NCT.E were not deliberate and the institutions and the student may not be penalized for the lapse which inadvertently occurred at the time of drafting. Dismissing the appeals, the Court H 614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R. A B HELD: 1.1 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 counsel for the appellants and their submission that the Court may take lenient view and order regularisation of the admissions already made sounds attrac.tive 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 National Council for c Teacher Education Act, 1993 read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007. Those managing the affairs of the appellants do not belong to the category of innocent, illiterate/uneducated 0 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 constitu·~ed by the Western Regional Committee (WRC) at Bhopal shows that they E 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. [Para 16) [635-0-H; 636- A-B] G F H

1.2 Although, in the absence of cogent material, it is ABHYUDYA SANSTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 615 not possible to record a finding that the students were A party to the patently wrong and misleading statement made by the appellants, the Court 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 B Regulation 8(12), the appeilants 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 c ground much less justification to confer legitimacy upon the admission made by the appellants in a clandestine manner. Any such order by the Court would 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, would 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, it is not proper to issue direction for regularising the admissions made by E the appellants on the strength of the interim orders passed by this Court. [Para 17] [638-D-H] 0 I

1.3 Each of the appellants is saddled with costs of · Rs.2 lakhs, which shall be deposited with the F 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. The appellants are also directed to pay G Rs.1 lakh 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 students to D.Ed. course. [Paras 18 and 21] [639-A-B-E]

1.4 None of the students, who had taken admission H 616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R. A 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. [Paras 19] [639-8-C] B c D