Madrasdated High Court · 2007

second respondent University reliance has been placed upon adecision in The University of Madras -vs- Loordhu Ammal EducationalTrust (supra), where another Division Bench of this Court whiledealing with similar circumstances of the present case, where theapproval of the NCTE was obtained and thereafter anticipatingaffiliation from the University, the institution has admittedstudents, held that mere recognition by the NCTE will not amount toautomatic grant of affiliation by the University and no college canclaim affiliation as of right and it is only for the University inits discretion to grant affiliation or not and that admission ofstudents before affiliation was granted by the University waswholly illegal. Reliance is also placed on the decision of theSupreme Court in A.P.Christians Medical Educational Society -vs-Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1986 (2) SCC 667, where the SupremeCourt has held that the Court cannot direct the University todisobey the statutes to which it owes its existence and theregulations made by the University itself. In view of this apparentconflict of opinions about the role of University vis-à-vis theteacher training institutions, the Division Bench has referred thismatter to the Full Bench. 4. We have heard Mr.P.Jayaraman, learned Senior Counselappearing for the petitioner; Mr.G.Sankaran, learned SpecialGovernment Pleader (Education) appearing for the first respondent;Mr.V.Govardhanan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3i.e., Manonmanian Sundaranar University and its Controller ofExaminations. Considering the importance of issues involved,notices were issued to all the concerned Universities as well asthe NCTE and Mr.M.Sekar, Mr.S.Sethuraman, Mr.KandavadivelDoraisamy, Mr.V.Govardhanan learned counsel appearing for variousUniversities and Mr.P.R.Gopinath, learned counsel appearing for theNCTE made their submission. Mr.N.R.Chandran andMr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for theintervening institutions also made their submissions. 5. Mr.P.Jayaraman, learned senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner contended that since the NCTE granted recognition by itsorder dated 06.10.2006 for the academic year 2006-2007, theUniversity was bound to grant affiliation for the same academicyear, in view of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 14(6) read with Section 17 (3) and (4) of the NCTE Act. Learnedcounsel urged that in view of judgment of the Supreme Court inUnion of India vs. Shah Goverdhan L.Kabra Teacher’s College,2002 (8) SCC 228 and in State of Maharashtra v. Sant DnyaneshwarShikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya, 2006 (9) SCC 1, the field ofTeacher Education is fully occupied by the NCTE Act enacted by theParliament under Entry 66 List I and any encroachment made by anyof the provisions of the relevant University Act shall be deemed tobe inoperative. Learned senior counsel submitted that a teachertraining institute is entitled to admit students immediately afterrecognition and that the restriction placed by the University Actand Statutes that the admission shall be made only after theaffiliation is granted, is an encroachment into the occupied fieldof a Central Legislation. He also submitted that after thejudgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Vinayaka Mission'sCollege of Nursing and Para-Medical Sciences -vs- The Tamil Nadu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nurses and Midwives Council (supra), the University has no power toreject an application on the ground that it was made after a cut-off date or on the ground that it is belated, once the expert bodyunder the Central Legislation had granted recognition.6. Mr.N.R.Chandran and Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned seniorcounsel appearing for the intervening institutions submitted thatafter the enactment of the NCTE Act, the NCTE is the finalauthority and has primary voice in establishing teacher traininginstitutions. Learned counsel submitted that sub-section (6) ofSection 14 of the NCTE Act expressly mandates the University to actin accordance with the directions of the NCTE and the Universitycannot over-look the statutory scheme. Therefore, when once theNCTE has made inspection and was satisfied that the necessaryinfrastructure was available and the institution would be able toconform to the required standards of education, the grant ofaffiliation is a mere consequence and no discretion is left to theUniversity so far affiliation as is concerned. Heavy reliance wasplaced on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Naduv.Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute, 1995 (4) SCC 104;Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal MedicalEducational & Charitable Trust -vs- State of Tamil Nadu, 1996 (3)SCC 15; and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust -vs- Commissioner ofSecretary to Government, Higher Education Department, 2000 (5) SCC231. A reference was also made to a Division Bench judgment of thisCourt in Bharathidasan University vs Dhanalakshmi SrinivasanEducational and Charitable Trust, 2005 (2) CTC 182, where the Benchheld that a combined reading of Section 14(4) and 14(6) read withSection 16 of the NCTE Act obligates an affiliating body(University) to grant affiliation on receiving information as torecognition of an institution from the NCTE and leave no discretionto the affiliating body to stipulate any more condition, especiallycondition of obtaining prior permission from the State Governmentwhich would render the order of recognition ineffective. 7. In reply M/s. V.Govardhanan, M.Sekar, Mr.S.Sethuraman,Mr.Kandavadivel Doraisami, learned counsel appearing for respectiveUniversities submitted that the educational institutions cannotadmit students to B.Ed course unless affiliation has been grantedby the University, and hence, until and unless, the Universitygrants affiliation to the institution, it had no right at all toadmit students to the course which would lead to conferring aUniversity degree. Learned counsel submitted that the Universitybefore granting affiliation is entitled to be satisfied that thecollege seeking affiliation has proper facilities, competent andqualified teaching staff and no college can claim affiliation as amatter of right. Learned counsel placed heavy reliance on thejudgment of the Division Bench of this Court in The University ofMadras vs Loordhu Ammal Educational Trust and another(supra) and anunreported judgment of this Court (rendered by D.Murugesan, J) inSree Arumugam Teacher Training College v. Thiruvalluvar University(W.P.Nos. 8685, 8687, 8869 and 8786/2006 dated 04.04.2006) and yetanother unreported judgment of this Court (rendered byV.Ramasubramanian,J) in Annai JKK Sampoorani Ammal Charitable Trustv. Bharathiar University (W.P.No. 34923 of 2006 fated 22.10.2006).Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Division Bench of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Delhi High Court in Rahol Dhaka Vikas Society v. Guru Govind SinghIndra Prastha University and others , AIR 2001 (Del.) 154. It was,further, contended that it is not permissible for an unaffiliatedinstitution to admit students and to permit such students to appearfor the examination conducted by the University and then to compelthe University to issue certificate in favour of those who haveundertaken the examination. It was contended that the Supreme Courthas repeatedly deprecated the practice of permitting the studentsto pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under thegarb of interim orders passed in the petitions. In this connection,a reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court inRegional Officer, CBSE v. K.U.Sheena Peethambaran, 2003 (7) SCC719. It was also submitted that the NCTE Regulations themselvesprovide for atleast 200 working days inclusive of period ofexamination and admission etc, and since the NCTE permission cameonly in October 2006, the students of the petitioner institutioncould not complete the term days, and therefore the decision of theUniversity to grant affiliation only from the academic year 2007-2008 was perfectly in tune with the requirements of the NCTERegulations. 8. Mr.P.R.Gopinathan, learned counsel appearing for the NCTEsubmitted that a teacher training institute is required to commencea course within the academic year specified by the concernedaffiliating authority like Universities in cases of B.Ed. M.Ed.,B.P.Ed., M.P.Ed., Courses and State Government for D.T.Ed.,C.P.Ed., Pre-Primary etc. after obtaining Unconditional Recognitionfrom NCTE. The University or affiliating authority is required toaffiliate an institution for the academic year which is viable. Ifthe academic year specified by the NCTE has already started beforethe institution obtained the recognition order, the affiliatingbody will decide on the matter whether to affiliate theinstitution in the running academic year if possible or for thenext academic year. He submitted that as per the previousregulations, the last date for submission of application by theinstitutions was 31st December of ever year for the ensuing academicyear, but after the regulations were revised the institutions cansubmit the applications to the NCTE throughout the year and theRegional Committee will process the applications throughout theyear and it is for the concerned affiliating authority (University)to grant affiliation for the academic session, which is viable foroffering the course. 9. Before we deal with the contentions of the parties, itwould be appropriate if we refer to the relevant provisions of lawof the Constitution delineating respective spheres of the Centraland the State Legislatures. Entry 66 of List 1, i.e. the UnionList of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution reads as follows:-''66. Co-ordination and determination of standards ininstitutions for higher education or research andscientific and technical institutions."This entry has remained unchanged since the inception of theConstitution. Before the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act,1976, which came into force with effect from 03.1.1977, Entry 11 inList II, i.e. the State List and Entry 25 in List III, i.e. theConcurrent List, were as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ''11. Education including universitiessubject to the provisions of entries 63, 64,65 and 66 of List I and entry 25 of ListIII".Before amendment, Entry 25 reads as follows:-''25. Vocational and technical training of Labour."After amendment, it reads as follows:-''25. Education, including technicaleducation, medical education anduniversities, subject to the provisions ofEntries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I;vocational and technical training of labour".10. The subject “co-ordination and determination of standardsin institutions for higher education or research and scientific andtechnical institutions" has always remained the special preserve ofParliament. This was so even before the Forty-second Amendment,since Entry 11 of List II even then was subject, among others, toEntry 66 of List I. After the said Amendment, the constitutionalposition on that score has not undergone any change. All that hashappened is that Entry 11 was taken out from List II andamalgamated with Entry 25 of List III. However, even the new Entry25 of List III is also subject to the provisions, among others, ofEntry 66 of List I. It cannot, therefore, be doubted nor is itcontended before us, that the legislation with regard to co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions forhigher education or research and scientific and technicalinstitutions has always been the preserve of Parliament. What wascontended before us was that once Parliament enacts a Legislationin respect to a particular field of education, the expert bodyconstituted under the said Legislation shall have supremacy overthe affiliating bodies like the Universities, which are created bythe Acts of the Legislatures of the States and grant of affiliationwould be a matter of mere formality. In order to appreciate thecorrectness of this contention, it is necessary to consider therelevant provisions of the NCTE Act and the Regulations framedthereunder. 11. The National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (NCTEAct) has been enacted by Parliament and deals with teachereducation. It came into force with effect from 01.7.1995. ThePreamble of the Act is relevant and reads thus :-''An Act to provide for the establishment of aNational Council for Teacher Education with aview to achieving planned and coordinateddevelopment of the teacher education systemthroughout the country, the regulation andproper maintenance of norms and standards inthe teacher education system and for mattersconnected therewith." 12. Section 2 is definition clause, wherein various terms havebeen defined. "Council" is defined as the National Council forTeacher Education established under sub-section (1) of Section 3 ofthe Act. "Institution" has been defined in Section 2(e) of the Actas "an institution which offers courses or training in teacher https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ education". "Teacher Education" has been defined in section 2(l)thus :''2(l) 'teacher education' means programmesof education, research or training of personsfor equipping them to teach at pre-primary,primary, secondary and senior secondarystages in schools, and includes non-formaleducation, part-time education, adulteducation and correspondence education;" Section 2(n) defines the term "university" thus:-''university" defined under clause (f) ofSection 2 of the University GrantsCommission Act, 1956 and includes aninstitution deemed to be a university underSection 3 of that Act. Chapter II provides for establishment of a Council and Chapter IIIdeals with functions to be performed by the Council. Section 12imposes duty on the Council to take necessary steps for ensuringplanned and coordinated development of teacher education and fordetermination and maintenance of standards for teacher education.13. Chapter IV is material and provides for recognition ofteacher training institutions. Section 14 deals with recognition ofinstitutions offering course or training in teacher education andreads as follows:-''14 (1) Every institution offering orintending to offer a course or training inteacher education on or after the appointedday, may, for grant of recognition under thisAct, make an application to the RegionalCommittee concerned in such form and in suchmanner as may be determined by regulations:Provided that an institution offeringa course or training in teachereducation immediately before theappointed day, shall be entitled tocontinue such course or training for aperiod of six months, if it has madean application for recognition withinthe said period and until thedisposal of the application by theRegional Committee.(2) the fee to be paid alongwith the application under sub-section (1) shall be such as may beprescribed.(3) On receipt of an applicationby the Regional Committee from anyinstitution under sub-section (1), andafter obtaining from the institutionconcerned such other particulars as itmay consider necessary, it shall,-(a) if it is satisfied that suchinstitution has adequate financialresources, accommodation, library,qualified staff, laboratory and that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ it fulfills such other conditionsrequired for proper functioning of theinstitution for a course or trainingin teacher education, as may bedetermined by regulations, pass anorder granting recognition to suchinstitution, subject to suchconditions as may be determined byregulations; or(b) if it is of the opinion thatsuch institution does not fulfill therequirements laid down in sub-clause(a), pass an order refusingrecognition to such institution forreasons to be recorded in writing:Provided that before passing an orderunder sub-clause (b), the RegionalCommittee shall provide a reasonableopportunity to the institutionconcerned for making a writtenrepresentation.(4) Every order granting orrefusing recognition to an institutionfor a course or training in teachereducation under sub-section (3) shallbe published in the Official Gazetteand communicated in writing forappropriate action to such institutionand to the examining body concerned,the local authority or the StateGovernment and the Central Government.(5) Every institution, in respectof which recognition has been refusedshall discontinue the course ortraining in teacher education from theend of the academic session nextfollowing the date of receipt of theorder refusing recognition passedunder clause (b) of sub-section (3).(6) Every examining body shall,on receipt of the order under sub-section (4), -(a) grant affiliation to theinstitution, where recognition hasbeen granted; or(b) cancel the affiliation ofthe institution, where recognitionhas been refused."14. Section 16 of the NCTE Act reads as follows:-“ 16. Affiliating body to grant affiliationafter recognition or permission by theCouncil: -Notwithstanding anything contained in anyother law for the time being in force, no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ examining body shall, on or after theappointing day, -(a)grant affiliation, whether provisional orotherwise, to any institution; or(b)hold examination, whether provisional orotherwise, for a course or trainingconducted by a recognized institution,Unless the institution concerned has obtainedrecognition from the Regional Committeeconcerned, under Section 14 or permission fora course or training under Section 15.”15. Sections 17(3) and 17(4) of the NCTE Act read asfollows: -“17. Contravention of provisions of the Actand consequences thereof: -- (3) Once therecognition of a recognized institution iswithdrawn under sub-section (1), suchinstitution shall discontinue the course ortraining in teacher education, and theconcerned University or the examining bodyshall cancel affiliation of the institutionin accordance with the order passed undersub-section (1), with effect from the end ofthe academic session next following the dateof communication of the said order.(4) If an institution offers any course oftraining in teacher education after thecoming into force of the order withdrawingrecognition under sub-section (1), or wherean institution offering a course or trainingin teacher education immediately before theappointing day fails or neglects to obtainrecognition or permission under this Act, thequalification in teacher education obtainedpursuant to such course or training or afterundertaking a course of training in suchinstitution, shall not be treated as a validqualification for purposes of employmentunder the Central Government, any StateGovernment or University, or in any school,college or other educational body aided bythe Central Government or any StateGovernment”.16. Section 31 of the NCTE Act enables the Central Governmentto make rules to carry out the purpose of the Act. Likewise Section32(1) of the Act empowers the Council to make regulations notinconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the rules madethereunder for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of theAct. In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (2) ofSection 32 of NCTE Act, the National Council for Teacher Educationhas framed Regulations, known as, "The National Council for TeacherEducation (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005”.Further, by way of amendment, norms and standards have beenprescribed for various teacher education programmes and the revised https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Regulations are now known as "National Council for TeacherEducation (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) (Amendment)Regulations, 2006 (hereinafter, for brevity sake, will be referredto as '2006 Regulations').Clause 2 of 2006 Regulation is material for our purpose and readsas follows:-''2.0. Duration and working days. 2.1 DurationB.Ed. Programme shall be of a duration of atleast one academic year.2.2 Working Days There shall be at least 200 working daysexclusive of period of examination and admissionetc. out of which at least 40 days shall be forpractice-teaching in about ten schools at upperprimary/secondary/senior secondary level. A workingday shall be of a minimum of 6 hours in a six-dayweek, during which physical presence in theinstitution of teachers and student-teachers isnecessary to ensure their availability forindividual advice, guidance, dialogues andconsultation as and when needed."17. Coming to the case law on issue, it is seen that in Stateof Tamil Nadu vs, Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute(supra), the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the role ofthe All Indian Council for Technical Education (AICTE) vis-à-visthe role of the University with regard to Entry 66 of the UnionList and Entry 25 of the Concurrent List. After comparing theCentral Act namely, the AICTE Act and the State Acts namely, theTamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and the Rules framedthereunder and the Madras University Act, the Supreme Court foundthat there was a conflict between and overlapping of the functionsof the AICTE and that of the University and therefore, to theextent of such inconsistency the provisions of the State Acts areinoperative. In paragraph-30 of the judgment, the Supreme Courtsustained the role of the University insofar as the grant ofaffiliation is concerned in the following words: -“ A comparison of the Central Act and theUniversity Act will show that as far as theinstitutions imparting technical educationare concerned, there is a conflict betweenand overlapping of he functions of theCouncil and the University. Under Section 10of the Central Act, it is the Council whichis entrusted with the power, particularly,to allocate and disburse grants, to evolvesuitable performance appraisal systemsincorporating norms and mechanisms formaintaining accountability of the technicalinstitutions laying down norms and standardsfor courses, curricula, staff pattern, staffqualifications, assessment and examinations,fixing norms and guidelines for chargingtuition fee and other fees, granting https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ approval for starting new technicalinstitutions or introducing new courses orprogrammes, to lay down norms or grantingautonomy to technical institutions,providing guidelines for admission ofstudents, inspecting or causing to inspectcolleges, for withholding or discontinuingof grants in respect of courses andprogrammes, declaring institutions atvarious levels and types fit to receivegrants, advising the Commission constitutedunder the Act for declaring technicaleducational institutions as deemeduniversities, setting up National Board ofAccreditation to periodically conductevaluation on the basis of guidelines andstandards specified and to makerecommendations to it or to the Council orthe Commission or other bodies under the Actregarding recognition or de-recognition ofthe institution or the programme conductedby it. Thus, so far as these matters areconcerned, in the case of the institutesimparting technical education, it is not theUniversity Act and the University, but it isthe Central Act and the Council createdunder which will have the jurisdiction. Tothat extent, after the coming into operationof the Central Act, the provisions of theUniversity Act will be deemed to have becomeunenforceable in case of technical collegeslike the engineering colleges. As has beenpointed out earlier, the Central Act hasbeen enacted by Parliament under Entry 66 ofList I to coordinate and determine thestandards of technical institutions as wellas under Entry 25 of List III. Theprovisions of the University Act regardingaffiliation of technical colleges like theengineering colleges and the conditions forgrant and continuation of such affiliationby the University shall , however,remainoperative but the conditions that areprescribed by the University for grant andcontinuance of affiliation will have to bein conformity with the norms and guidelinesprescribed by the Council in respect ofmatters entrusted to it under Section 10 ofthe Central Act.18. While summarizing the legal position, the Court observedin paragraph-41 of the judgment as follows: -“ (i)………. (ii)……… (iii)……… https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iv) Whether the State law encroachesupon Entry 66 of the Union List or isrepugnant to the law made by the Centre underEntry 25 of the Concurrent List, will have tobe determined by the examination of the twolaws and will depend upon the facts of eachcase. 19. In Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru SundaraSwamigal Medical Educational & Charitable Trust -vs- State of TamilNadu (supra), the question was of repugnancy between theprovisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the TamilNadu Medical University Act, 1987 renamed as Dr.M.G.R MedicalUniversity, Tamil Nadu (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1989.Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, as inserted by theIndian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 1993, which was the CentralAct enacted by Parliament, required permission for establishing newmedical colleges in the country “notwithstanding anythingcontained” in the said Act or any other law for the time being inforce. The proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 5 of theDr.M.G.R.Medical University Act, however, prescribes that nocollege shall be affiliated to the University unless permission ofthe Government to establish such college has been obtained. In viewof the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the said Act , itwas contended by the State Government that unless permission of theGovernment to establish new college had been obtained from theState Government, no medical college could be opened, even if suchpermission was granted by the Medical Council under the CentralAct. Overruling the said objection, the Court held that by enactingSection 10-A, Parliament has made “a complete and exhaustiveprovision covering the entire field for establishing of new medicalcolleges in the country”. No further scope is left for theoperation of the State Legislation in the said field, which wasfully covered by the law made by Parliament. The Court, therefore,held that the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the saidAct which required prior permission of the State Government forestablishing a medical college was repugnant to Section 10-A of theCentral Act and to the extent of repugnancy, the said Act would notoperate. 20. In Jaya Gokul Educational Trust -vs- Commissioner ofSecretary to Government, Higher Education Department (supra), theSupreme Court again reiterated the principles laid down inAdhiyaman Educational and Research Institute case. In that case,the appellant-trust which wanted to establish a self-financingengineering college had submitted an application to the Universityas well as to the AICTE. The appellant’s application was rejectedby the University for want of approval from the State Government.Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the AICTE Actoccupied the field relating to the grant of approval forestablishing educational institutions and consequently, the KeralaUniversity Statute requiring approval of the State Government wouldbe repugnant to the provisions of the AICTE Act and such provisionwould be void. It was held that the policy decision taken by theGovernment not to grant any affiliation to start private colleges https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is illegal and void. The State could not have any policy outsideAICTE, and if it had a policy it should have been placed before theAICTE and that too before the latter granted permission. Once theprocedure laid down by the AICTE Act and Regulations have beenfollowed under Regulation 8(4) and the Central Task Force has givenits favourable recommendation, there was no further scope for anymore objection or approval by the State. In paragraph-30 of thejudgment, the Court held that “the University should have acted onthe basis of the permission granted by the AICTE and other relevantfactors in the University Act or Statutes which are notinconsistent with the AICTE Act or Regulations.” In other words,the Court not merely directed the University to go by thepermission granted by the AICTE, but also take into account theother relevant factors in the University Act or Statutes which arenot inconsistent with the AICTE Act or Regulations.21. In none of these judgments, the Supreme Court has laiddown that the grant of affiliation by the University is a matter ofcourse or mere formality once the expert body set up by the CentralAct had granted the permission. All the judgments of the SupremeCourt arose out of a case where either the State Governmentsinsisted upon the prior approval from them or the University Actscontained a provision for prior approval from the StateGovernments. In all the cases, the issue was only in regard to therequirement of ‘no objection certificate’ from the State Governmentand not with respect to the academic standards prescribed by theUniversity.22. The next decision cited on behalf of the petitioner inState of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan ShastraMahavidyalaya(supra) was a decision in respect of NCTE. Thequestion had arisen in that case as to whether the State Governmentcan refuse permission to an institution which had been grantedpermission to start B.Ed College under the NCTE Act and whether thepolicy decision of the State Government not to grant ‘no objectioncertificate’ would bind the NCTE in the light of the provisions ofthe NCTE Act. Following its earlier decisions in AdhiyamanEducational and Research Institute Case, Thirumuruga KirupanandaVariyar case and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust case, the Courtconcluded as follows: -“ 63. In the instant case, admittedly,Parliament has enacted the 1993 Act, whichis in force. The preamble of the Actprovides for establishment of NationalCouncil for Teacher Education (NCTE) with aview to achieving planned and coordinateddevelopment of the teacher-education systemthroughout the country, the regulation andproper maintenance of norms and standards inthe teacher-education system and for mattersconnected therewith. With a view toachieving that object, the National Councilfor Teacher Education has been establishedat four places by the Central Government.It is thus clear that the field is fullyand completely occupied by an Act of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Parliamentand covered by Entry 66 of List Iof Schedule VII. It is, therefore, no opento the State Legislature to encroach uponthe said field. Parliament alone could haveexercised the power by making appropriatelaw. In the circumstances, it is not open tothe State Government to refuse permissionrelying on a State Act or on "policyconsideration".23. The ratio in the case of State of Maharashtra v. SantDnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (supra) is entirelyrelated to the insistence by the University for permission from theState Government to start a teacher training institute by takingrecourse to Sections 82 & 83 of the Maharashtra Universities Act,1984. In that case, the Supreme Court was not concerned with thestatutes framed by the University for implementation of theacademic standards or any other matter connected with theimprovement of norms and standards in the field of teachereducation. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court did not agreewith the observations made by the Division Bench of the Bombay HighCourt that the provisions of Sections 82 & 83 of the MaharashtraUniversities Act which are inconsistent with the provisions of theNCTE Act are “null and void” and clarified that what the High Courtwanted to convey was that the provision of Sections 82 & 83 of thesaid Act requiring approval from the State would not apply to theinstitution covered under Section 14(6) of the NCTE Act, and oncerecognition is granted under Section 14(6), the University isobliged to grant affiliation to such institution and Sections 82 &83 of the Maharashtra Universities Act do not apply to such cases. 24. Insofar as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union ofIndia vs. Shah Goverdhan L.Kabra Teacher’s College (supra) isconcerned, the challenge before the Supreme Court was with regardto the validity of Section 17(4) of the NCTE Act on the ground thatit affects the independence of the State Government to prescribeits own standards for employment to the said services. It wasargued in the said case that Section 17(4) of the Act amounted to alaw dealing with employment impinging upon the right of the StateGovernment. Rejecting the argument, the Supreme Court held that theNCTE Act squarely fall under Entry 66 of List I and Parliament haslegislative competence to enact the said Act. 25. Much reliance has been placed upon the judgment of theDivision Bench in Bharathidasan University vs. DhanalakshmiSrinivasan Educational and Charitable Trust (supra). Our attentionwas drawn to the following observations in para.24 of the judgment:-“24. ..... A combined reading of Sections14(4), 14(6) read with Section 16 of theNCTE Act obligated the affiliating body togrant affiliation on receiving informationas to recognition of an institution from theNCTE and thus leave no discretion toaffiliating body to stipulate any morecondition especially condition of imposing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prior permission of the State Governmentwhich would render the order of recognitionas ineffective. The scheme of the NCTE Actand the Regulations made thereunder as hasbeen interpreted the various provisions ofthe NCTE Act and the Regulations madethereunder as held by the Supreme Court inSt.John's Teacher Training Institute -vs-Regional Director, 2003 (3) SCC 321, whereinit was held that the Regional Committee ofNCTE is empowered to consider the claim forrecognition independently notwithstandingthe refusal of NOC by the StateGovernment. Once the recognising body heldthat the refusal of NOC by the StateGovernment would not stand in the way ofgranting recognition, it would be ex-facieillegal to insist very same rigour conditionfor granting of affiliation by one of theagencies, namely, Universities under theNCTE Act. We are satisfied that the NCTEAct contained enough provisions pertainingto granting of affiliation and that theaction of the Writ Appellant University inimposing a pre-condition of prior permissionfrom the State Government as indicated inthe impugned order constitutes error oflaw, arbitrary and opposed to the objectand scheme of the NCTE Act besides beingopposed to the law declared by the SupremeCourt. As explained earlier, the provisionscontained in Sections 14(4); 14(6) and 16 ofthe NCTE Act is wider in scope thanSection 10(k) of AICTE Act and Section 10-Aof Indian Medical Council Act inasmuch asthe NCTE Act takes in its fold the matterof granting affiliation. Further, the NCTEAct contains adequate provisions as regardsgranting of affiliation as automatic one inrespect of institutions which have beengranted with recognition by the NCTE.Hence, the contention of the writappellants that the provisions of theState Enactment is only a supplemental andnot supplant to the Central Act cannot beaccepted. The contention that NCTE Actdeals with recognition only and notestablishment of institution etc. have nosubstance for the reasons stated supra asalso on the ground that the word,'recognition' as employed in NCTE Act and'approval' as mentioned in Section 10(k) ofthe AICTE Act and 10-A of the IndianMedical Council Act would give the samemeaning in legal parlance having regard tothe object of those provisions contained in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the respective enactment. The argumentthat rule 2(b) of the Tamil Nadu PrivateColleges (Regulation) Act includes teachertraining colleges and, hence, the impugnedcondition is justified is liable to berejected on the grounds that Rule cannotover-ride the provisions of the Act andthat the State cannot enact law repugnant tothe provisions contained in the Central Actas has been repeatedly held by the SupremeCourt of India. As rightly pointed out, theUniversity is one of the agencies under theNCTE Act and is obligated to grantaffiliation on receipt of order ofrecognition in respect of any technicalinstitution in terms of Section 14(4) readwith Section 14(6) of the NCTE Act. Thoughit is stated that the function of grantingaffiliation is legislative in nature and thesame cannot be abdicated to outside agency.In the instant case, a perusal of theimpugned order discloses that the same cameto be passed on the basis of the resolutionof the Syndicate which in turn rely on theprovisions contained in the Tamil NaduPrivate Colleges (Regulation) Act, ignoringthe express provisions viz., Sections 14(4), 14(6) of the NCTE Act." 26. In Bharathidasan Univeristy’s case, the only issue whichfell for consideration of the Division Bench was whether thelearned single Judge was right in directing the University toconsider the application submitted by the petitioner institutionfor grant of affiliation to its teacher training course withoutinsisting on the production of ‘no objection certificate’ from theGovernment. The Division Bench following the judgments of theSupreme Court in Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute Case,Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar case and Jaya Gokul EducationalTrust case held that the University cannot insist upon ‘noobjection certificate’ from the State Government. Therefore, thejudgment in Bharathidasan University’s case has to be understoodonly in the context of the condition imposed by the University forobtaining ‘no objection certificate’ from the State Government. Noobjection certificate alone was held to be repugnant to the NCTEAct and nothing more can be read into the judgment of the DivisionBench so as to affect the role of the University insofar as themaintenance of norms and standards in teacher training institutionsare concerned. 27. In Vinayaka Missions College of Nursing and Para-MedicalSciences v. The Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council (supra), theappellant after taking prior permission from the PondicherryGovernment vide agreement dated 26.06.2002 took over the control ofthe management of RM College of Para-Medical Sciences to imparteducation in various para-medical courses including B.Sc (Nursing)comprising of degree, diploma and certificate courses. On https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

03.07.2002, the appellant wrote to the first respondent-Universityabout the said fact of obtaining permission for taking over fromthe Government of Pondicherry and requested for grant ofaffiliation for various para-medical courses run by the said RMPara-Medical Courses, which the appellant-trust has taken over inthe name of “Vinayaka Missions College of Nursing and Para-MedicalSciences. It appears that without waiting for grant of affiliationthe management proceeded to conduct various courses including B.Sc(Nursing) degree course and students have been admitted from July2002 for the academic year 2002-2003. The Indian Nursing Counciland the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midvives Council granted recognitionfor the B.Sc (Nursing) degree course for the academic years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. However, the first respondentUniversity failed to process the application for affiliation, whichresulted in appellant making representations to the University.However, the University refused to pass any order on the requestfor affiliation to the appellant-nursing college. The managementthen filed a writ petition seeking writ of mandamus directing thefirst respondent-University to grant affiliation for the academicyears 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. A counter-affidavit wasfiled by the first respondent-University in which it was statedthat taking note of the time frame under which the institution hadapproached the University for grant of affiliation and withreference to the relevant regulation, more particularly clause 5(a)of the Academic Ordinance under the Pondicherry University Act,1985, the appellant trust was informed that its application foraffiliation could be considered only for the academic year 2003-2004, subject to the petitioner being able to provide the approvalof competent authority before the end of May 2003 and ‘no objectioncertificate’ from the Government of Pondicherry. A second writpetition was filed by the appellant trust to quash the order dated07.02.2006 passed by the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midvives Councilwherein the appellant was directed to handover the students’original certificates and other documents, files, registers,records and communication pertaining to these students to beallotted to other institutions. The Division Bench relying upon thejudgment in Bharathidasan University v. Dhanalakshmi SrinivasanEducational and Charitable Trust (supra) and certain orders passedin other cases, held that the first respondent University is dutybound to consider the request of the appellant for grant ofaffiliation, otherwise the grant of recognition by the competentauthorities will be set at naught and directed the first respondentUniversity to consider the request of the appellant for grant ofaffiliation for the academic years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 aftermaking necessary inspection. A cursory reading of the judgment ofthe Division Bench would show that the controversy arose due to thepersistent blind refusal by the Pondicherry University to grantaffiliation for years together. Hence, the said judgment has to beunderstood only in the context of reasons stated in the impugnedorder in the said case. However, we do not agree with the broadproposition laid down by the Division Bench that when the CentralCouncil granted recognition, the University was bound to accede tothe request of the institution to grant affiliation mechanically orautomatically. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

28. In University of Madras v. Loordhu Ammal Educational Trustand another(supra), NCTE having been satisfied with therequirements and other facilities and amenities provided by thefirst respondent-trust i.e., original writ petitioner has grantedapproval of the writ petitioner institution by order dated2.11.2004 for a sanctioned strength of 100 seats for the academicyear 2004-2005 under the NCTE Act. The writ petitioner having gotapproval from the NCTE, applied for affiliation with the MadrasUniversity on 03.11.2004. The University issued an order dated22.11.2004 directing the writ petitioner institution to obtain ‘noobjection certificate from the Government of Tamil Nadu, so as toenable the University to take further action in the matter ofgranting affiliation, and it further directed not to conductclasses without provisional affiliation. The writ petitionerchallenged the said order, dated 22.11.2004 in W.P.No.34823 of 2004and the same was allowed by the learned Single Judge, who held inhis judgment that the impugned order of the University insistingprior permission of the State Government for grant of affiliationcannot be sustained and set aside the same and further directedthe respondent University to consider the application of the writpetitioner for grant of affiliation for B.Ed. Degree Course for theAcademic Year 2004-2005 without reference to the prior permissionfrom the State Government. In the meantime, the writ petitioneradmitted students and conducted classes allegedly to fulfill therequisite number of attendance prescribed by the University. It wasalleged that the students of the writ petitioner's institution havecompleted necessary training/coaching classes and are fullyequipped to appear for the examination scheduled to be held on20.4.2005. The question before the Court was whether the writpetitioner institution was justified in admitting the students toB.Ed. Course since affiliation has not been granted to it by theMadras University, and whether the grant of affiliation by theUniversity was only a formality. Markandey Katju, J (as he thenwas) speaking for the Bench observed: - “15. We cannot accept the submission of thelearned counsel for the first respondentthat merely because recognition to thecollege has been granted by NCTE,affiliation must necessarily be granted bythe Madras University. Since the degreewhich would be granted will be that ofMadras University obviously the MadrasUniversity, before granting affiliation,would like to be satisfied that the collegeseeking affiliation has proper facilities,competent and qualified teaching staff, etc.16. Every University has got certainreputation, which it naturally wants to beprotected and upheld. It is for this reasonthat before grant of affiliation,Universities make inspection, enquiry etc.about the college seeking affiliation.17. .......18. We are of the opinion that anycollege or institution admitting students https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for a degree in a University even before theUniversity accords it affiliation is reallycommitting fraud on those students and ischeating those students who are givenadmission, because those students can beleft in the lurch if ultimately affiliationis not granted.19. In our opinion, no college canclaim affiliation as of right. It is onlyfor the University in its discretion togrant affiliation or not. This Court cannotarrogate to itself the powers to grantaffiliation, nor can it direct theUniversity to grant affiliation. An actwhich the statutory authority has to docannot be done by this Court, and this Courtmust exercise restraint in this connection." 29. The writ petitioner sought review of the order and thereview application was based on the decision of the Division Benchin Bharathidasan University v. Dhanalakshmi Srnivasan Educationaland Charitable Trust (supra) and reliance was particularly placedon the following observation of the Division Bench: -“Further the NCTE Act contains adequateprovisions as regards granting ofaffiliation as automatic one in respect ofinstitutions which have been granted withrecognition by the NCTE." The Division Bench dismissing the review application reportedin 2005 (2) CTC 513 (Loordhu Ammal Educational Trust v. TheUniversity of Madras) observed as follows: -“4. In our opinion, the word 'automatic'used in the aforesaid judgment should notbe treated to mean that the MadrasUniversity must blindly grant affiliationwhenever an order of recognition by NCTEunder the NCTE Act, 1993 is produced beforeit. No doubt Section 14 (6) says that theexamining body, on receipt of the orderunder sub-section (4) of Section 14, shallgrant affiliation to the institution whererecognition has been granted. However, thisdoes not mean that as soon as an order ofrecognition from the NCTE is producedbefore the University it must close itseyes and straightaway grant affiliation.5. In our opinion, when a recognitionorder of NCTE is produced before theUniversity, the University can make alimited enquiry as to whether the RegionalCommittee before granting recognitionfollowed the provisions of Section 14(3)(a)of the NCTE Act, which states:''On receipt of an application by theRegional Committee from any institutionunder sub-section (1), and after obtaining https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from the institution concerned such otherparticulars as it may consider necessary, itshall -(a) if it is satisfied that such institutionhas adequate financial resources,accommodation, library, qualified staff,laboratory and that it fulfills such otherconditions required for proper functioningof the institution for a course or trainingin teacher education, as may be determinedby regulations, pass an order grantingrecognition to such institution, subject tosuch conditions as may be determined byregulations."6. It must be understood that aUniversity is a centre of higher learningand naturally has to maintain its reputationand it will like to grant affiliation onlyto a college which has the properfacilities, qualified staff, financialresources, etc.7. We may take a hypothetical case.Supposing a college which does not have theadequate facilities, qualified staff,financial resources etc. by manipulation orsome fraud obtains a recognition certificatefrom the NCTE even though the procedureunder Section 14(3)(a) has not beenfollowed, and then it applies foraffiliation to the Madras University, doesnot mean that the Madras University mustclose its eyes and even without making anyenquiry on its own whether Section 14(3)(a)was complied with must straightaway grantaffiliation? Madras University is aprestigous university which has producedoutstanding scholars who have created a markall over the world and we cannot accept thecontention that Madras University mustblindly grant affiliation just because therecognition certificate by NCTE is producedbefore it. Of course, if in the limitedenquiry as to whether before grantingrecognition the Regional Committee hadfollowed the procedure mentioned in Section14(3)(a), the Madras University issatisfied that it was followed, then MadrasUniversity will have to grant affiliation,but it can certainly make this limitedenquiry before doing so. After all, thedegree which will be granted will be ofMadras University." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

30. A somewhat similar issue fell for consideration of theDivision Bench of the Delhi High Court in Rahul Dhaka Vikas Societyv. Guru Govind Singh IndraPrastha University and others (supra). Inthe said case, the petitioner therein was granted recognition bythe NCTE. Though Guru Govind Singh University was provisionallygranted affiliation for the academic year 1999-2000, the Universityrefused to continue the affiliation for the year 2000-2001. Therefusal of the University to extend the affiliation was challengedon the ground that once the NCTE has granted recognition, theUniversity cannot refuse affiliation. The argument in the said casewas based on the language used in Section 14(6) of the NCTE Actwith particular emphasis on the word ‘shall’ appearing in Section14(6). Rejecting the argument, the Division Bench of the Delhi HighCourt held as follows; -“ 11. It is, keeping in view the provisionsof the Indraprastha Vishwavidyalaya Act,1998 that provisions of Section 16 of theNCTE Act are to be given an interpretation.If the interpretation as suggested byInstitute is given, following would be theconsequences:a)Grant of recognition would mean grant ofautomatic affiliation with any University.b)Depriving the University of its power togive affiliation or refuse affiliation.c)Possessed with the order of recognition andinstitution can go to any University foraffiliation. In other words, it would be the soleprerogative of the institution to decide theUniversity with which it wants to beaffiliated and such University has no choicebut to grant affiliation. d)University will have to grant affiliationeven if the particular institution does notconform to the standards or meets therequirements of the Act, Statutes,Ordinances and Regulations of thatUniversity.12. Naturally, such an interpretation assuggested by the Institute which leads tothe aforesaid appalling and blightingconsequences and may have the effect ofdestroying the very autonomy of anUniversity and may give licence to aninstitution to violate the provisions of theActs, Statutes, Ordinance etc. of theUniversity with impunity, cannot beaccepted. Merely because the NCTE Act is aCentral Statute, does not mean that it hasto be interpreted in a manner which destroysthe very fabric and edifice of theUniversity. Therefore need is to interpretthe provisions of the two Acts, one Centraland other State, harmoniously so that both https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ are able to survive in their respectivefields and also able to achieve theirrespective objections. It is only when theprovisions of the State Act are repugnant tothat of Central Act that the provisions ofState Act have to give way to the provisionsof Central Act. Article 254 of theConstitution of India deals with thesituation where there is inconsistencebetween laws made by the parliament and lawsmade by the legislatures of Statesinterpreting the principle of repugnancycontained in this Article, followingprinciples can be culled out from variousjudgments: -1. The State law does not become void andsoon as the Union Parliament legislates withrespect to the same subject. There isnothing to prevent the State Legislature tolegislate with respect to a Concurrentsubject merely because there is a Union lawrelating to the same subject. Article 254(2)is attracted only if the State law is‘repugnant’ to the Union Act, which meansthat the two cannot stand together. Thedoctrine of ‘occupied field’ has noapplication in the interpretation of thepresent Article. 2. There is no question of applying Article254, unless the State law is, in its ‘pithan substance’ a law relating to theConcurrent List. If it is covered by anEntry in the State List, but only touchesthe Concurrent List incidentally, there isno application of Article 254.3. The onus of showing the ‘repugnancy’ andthe extent thereof is on the party whoattacks the validity of the State law.”14. ..No doubt once the word ‘shall’ is usedin a provision, it raises a presumption thatthe particular provision is mandatory.However, this prima facie interference maybe rebutted by other considerations such asobject and scope of the enactment and theconsequence flowing from such construction.Keeping in view this consideration, we areof the opinion that the word ‘shall’occurring in sub-section (6) of Section 14should be construed as merely directory andnot mandatory as the context and theintention of legislature demands thisconstruction. Instances are not lackingwhere Courts have given such interpretationto the word ‘shall’ appearing in theprovisions of a Statute by carefullyattending to the whole scope of the Statute” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. … Therefore normally affiliation shouldnot be refused on the grounds which arecovered by Section 14(3) of the NCTE Act andCouncil has already satisfied itself thatthe Institute meets these requirements.However, this would not be an absolute ruleand the University shall still have theright to satisfy itself about thefulfillment of conditions for affiliation bythe Institute in accordance with its Act,Statutes, etc. But if the affiliation isrefused on any of these grounds, it will befor the University to justify its decisionthat notwithstanding the ‘recognition’ bythe Council, the institution lacked any ofthe aforesaid facilities and the council hadnot acted properly in granting therecognition. Moreover, apart from theconsiderations mentioned in Section 14(3) ofthe NCTE Act, there may be other validconsiderations which may compel theUniversity to still refuse affiliation.After all it is the University which confersthe degree. It is the credibility,reputation or the goodwill of the Universitywhich is at stake”31. In the case of Annai J.K.K.Sampoorni Ammal CharitableTrust vs. Bharathiayar University (supra), the NCTE grantedrecognition to the petitioner institution vide order dated01.04.2006 to start B.Ed degree course for the academic year 2005-06 and the State Government also issued no objection certificate on01.03.2006 for the same academic year 2005-2006. But on theapplication dated 05.01.2006 submitted by the petitioner for grantof affiliation, the University vide its order dated 18.04.2006granted affiliation only for the academic year 2006-2007 on theshort ground that there would be lack of adequate term days for theacademic year 2005-2006. The argument of the petitioner was thatsince the NCTE had granted recognition for the academic year 2005-2006, the University is obliged to simply follow suit, on accountof the clear mandate of Section 14(6) of the NCTE Act and that it“shall grant affiliation”. Following the decision of the DivisionBench in The University of Madras vs Loordhu Ammal EducationalTrust and another (supra), and that of the Division Bench judgmentof the Delhi High Court in Rahul Dhaka Vikas Society v. GuruGovind Singh IndraPrastha University and others (supra)V.Ramasubramanian, J held as follows: -“ 18. A combined reading of Sections 14(6),16, 17(3) and 17(4) shows that what isprimarily required by NCTE Act, 1993 isthat the National Council and theUniversity should act in tandem and not ata tangent. The plain and simple messagethat is sought to be conveyed by theseSections of the NCTE Act, 1993, is that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ University shall grant affiliation only ifNCTE grants recognition and shall refuseaffiliation if NCTE refuses recognition.Similarly, if NCTE withdraws recognition,the University shall also withdrawaffiliation and the qualification acquiredfrom an unrecognized institute shall not betreated as a valid qualification foremployment in any State or CentralGovernment or Government Body. In otherwords, the decision of the University togrant or not to grant or to withdrawaffiliation, should coincide with thedecision of the NCTE to grant or not togrant or to withdraw recognition.What isactually sought to be achieved by Sections14(6), 16 , 17(3) and 17(4) of NCTE Act,1993 is an identity of mind and uniformityof objective to ensure that there is propermaintenance of norms and standards, asspelt out in the Statement of Objects andReasons. The same cannot be stretched tosuch an extent, as to make affiliation, amere counterfoil to an order ofrecognition. 19. The object of the above provisionsof NCTE Act, 1993 is only to ensurecoordination and co-existence with mutualrespect between NCTE and the affiliatingUniversity and I am unable to see anyintention on the part of the Parliament, todwarf the Universities, by incorporatingthese Sections, in NCTE Avt, 1993.……..…….30. If we do not loose track of theobjects for which NCTE Act was enacted, wewould find that any provision contained inthe University Act that would improve thenorms and standards of teacher education,cannot be held to be repugnant to the NCTEAct. If by applying the doctrine of pithand substance, we find that a particularprovision in the University Act is intendedfor improving the quality of teachereducation, it should be taken assubservient to the cause sought to beachieved by NCTE and not subversive of theobjects sought to be achieved. 31. Applying the above test, I findthat the insistence by University for aparticular number of term days, is only toimprove the quality of education and henceit cannot be taken to be an encroachmentinto a field occupied by NCTE Act, 1993. ……. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ……46. There can be no dispute that theNCTE itself is concerned with a particularnumber of term days, which is referred toin Appendix-7 Clause 4 under Regulation-8of NCTE Regulations 2002 as “at least 150teaching days in a year”. This prescriptionis in addition to an internship in teachingfor at least 30 days. Therefore, it isclear that NCTE also wants the candidatesadmitted to teacher training institutionsto undergo the curriculum for a prescribednumber of days. What is referred to in NCTERegulations as “teaching days” is referredto as “term days” by the University. Hencethe concern expressed by the Universityunder the impugned order that the studentsof the petitioner-institution may not beable to complete the term days, isperfectly in tune with the requirementunder NCTE Regulations 2002.32. In Sree Arumugam Teacher Training College vs.Thiruvalluvar University, W.P.Nos. 8685, 8687, 8869 and 8186of 2006 dated 4.4.2006, D.Murugesan, J considered the effectof Clause 46 Chapter XXVI of the Statutes of the MadrasUniversity and held that there cannot be any retrospectiveaffiliation and that the attendance before affiliation wouldnot be taken into consideration. In para.12 of the saidjudgment, the learned Judge referred to the provisions ofSection 14 of theNational Council for Teacher Education andheld as follows: -“ 12. The power to grant recognition tostart Teacher Training Course including thedegree level shall vest only with theNational Council for Teacher Education (inshort NCTE). The National Council forTeacher Education Regulations and theconditions on which the recognition isgranted in terms of Section 14(1) of theNational Council for Teacher Education Actare binding on the institutes availing suchrecognition. Condition no.3(a) of theconditions of recognition contemplates thatthe institution shall ensure that eightexclusive faculty members duly approved bythe affiliating University are in a positionfor an intake of 100 students and a reportto this effect shall be sent to the SouthernRegional Committee immediately and in anycase before the commencement of admissionsfor the course. A plain reading of the abovecondition shows that before admission to thecourse is commenced, the institution shouldget the approval of the affiliatingUniversity as to the faculty members. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fact of approval shall be communicated tothe NCTE by the colleges by way of reports.Unless these two conditions are complied,the institution cannot admit the students.Condition no.4 further contemplates that therecognition is subject to the fulfillment ofall such other requirements as may beprescribed by other regulatory bodies likethe State Government, etc. So far as thegrant of affiliation is concerned, therespondent university is alone empowered.The grant of affiliation entitles thecolleges not only to admit the students butalso enables the students so admitted towrite the examination subject to thetraining in the prescribed syllabi andfulfilling the attendance norms. If both thecondition nos. 3(a) and 4 are read together,it is obvious that even as per theconditions of recognition, no student can beadmitted before the approval of the facultymembers and a report to that effect is sentto the NCTE, and further no student would beentitled to write the examination unlesshe/she earns the minimum attendance as perthe norms. As per condition no.4, grant ofaffiliation is also one of the requirementsand without which a mere attendance in theclass without there being a conferment ofdegree would be of no use.”44. Again in paragraph-14 of thejudgment, the learned Judge held as follows:-“ A mere grant of recognition or NOCwould be of no use as students cannot beimparted training and consequently, obtaindegree in the absence of affiliation. AUniversity which is obligated to itsstatutes shall ensure as to whether thestudents had put in minimum attendance andhad undergone the course in the prescribedsyllabi and had been imparted training byqualified teachers before allowing suchstudents to write the examination. It wouldbe only in conformity with the regulationsof the University if the attendance securedby students, after the affiliation wasgranted is taken into consideration toarrive the minimum required number of daysto write the examination. Any otherconclusion shall not be in tune to theobject requiring affiliation from theUniversity for registering the candidates towrite the examination” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

33. The same view has been taken by one of us (PrabhaSridevan, J) in W.P.Nos. 45461 and 45462 of 2006 dated 28.2.2007(Tvl.Aruna Malai College of Education v. Secretary to Governmentand others).34. In Regional Officer, C.B.S.E vs. KU.SheemaPeethambaran(supra) the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of permittingthe students of unaffiliated institutions to pursue their studiesand to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed inthe petitions. The following observation in para.6 are extremelyimportant: -“6. This Court has on several occasionsearlier deprecated the practice ofpermitting the students to pursue theirstudies and to appear in the examinationunder the interim orders passed in thepetitions. In most of such cases it isultimately pleaded that since the coursewas over or the result had been declared,the matter deserves to be consideredsympathetically. It results in very awkwardand difficult situations. Rules starestraight into the face of the plea ofsympathy and concessions, against the legalprovisions. A few decisions on the pointmay be perused. In C.B.S.E. -vs- P.SunilKumar (1998) 5 SCC 377), the institutionswhose students were permitted to undertakethe examination of the Central Board ofSecondary Education were not affiliated tothe Board, hence the students were notentitled to appear in the examination. Theywere, however, allowed to appear in theexamination under the interim ordersgranted by the Court in contravention of therules and regulations of the Board. TheHigh Court considering the mattersympathetically had not interfered, but thisCourt observed thus: (SCC p.381, para 4):-''But to permit students of an unaffiliatedinstitution to appear at the examinationconducted by the Board under orders of theCourt and then to compel the Board to issuecertificates in favour of those who haveundertaken examination would tantamount tosubversion of law and this Court will not bejustified to sustain the orders issued bythe High Court on misplaced sympathy infavour of the students".The order of the High Court was setaside. Another decision reported in GuruNanak Dev University -vs- ParminderKr.Bansal ((1993) 4 SCC 401), a three-JudgeBench decision, was relied upon in the caseof Sunil Kumar ((1998) 5 SCC 377). A passage https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from the above noted decision was alsoquoted therein which reads as follows:- (SCCp.403, para 7).''We are afraid that this kind ofadministration of interlocutory remedies,more guided by sympathy quite often whollymisplaced, does no service to anyone. Fromthe series of orders that keep comingbefore us in academic matters, we find thatloose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades asinterlocutory justice exposing judicialdiscretion to the criticism of degeneratinginto private benevolence. This is subversiveof academic discipline, or whatever is leftof it, leading to serious impasse inacademic life. Admissions cannot be orderedwithout regard to the eligibility of thecandidates. Decisions on matters relevant tobe taken into account at the interlocutorystage cannot be deferred or decided laterwhen serious complications might ensue fromthe interim order itself. In the presentcase, the High Court was apparently movedby sympathy for the candidates than by anaccurate assessment of even the prima facielegal position. Such orders cannot beallowed to stand. The courts should notembarrass academic authorities by themselvestaking over their functions."Yet another decision referred to isreported in A.P.Christians MedicalEducational Society -vs- Government ofAndhra Pradesh ((1986) 2 SCC 667), again athree-Judge Bench decision. It was observedin this case: (SCC p.678, para 10):''We cannot by our fiat direct theUniversity to disobey the statute to whichit owes its existence and the regulationsmade by the University itself. We cannotimagine anything more destructive of therule of law than a direction by the courtto disobey the laws."The above-referred matter relates tothe admission and examination of MBBScourses.7. In the background of the law as laiddown by this Court, we find that in thecase in hand the fact situation was evenworse as compared to the decision citedabove. The student, namely, Respondent 1had failed to clear her Class IX examinationwhich was a necessary requirement asprovided under the bye-laws of the Boardso as to be entitled to appear in Class Xexamination conducted by the Board. Despitenotice, no one has put in appearance on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 to indicateany fact or circumstance so as to take anydifferent view. Condoning the lapses oroverlooking the legal requirements inconsideration of mere sympathy factor doesnot solve the problem, rather breeds moreviolations in the hope of being condoned.It disturbs the discipline of the systemand ultimately, adversely affects theacademic standards.”35. We have considered the provisions of the relevant statutesand the decided cases. In our opinion, it is impossible to acceptthe submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Institutionthat merely because the recognition to the institution has beengranted by the NCTE, affiliation must necessarily be granted by theUniversity. If the interpretation as suggested by the Institutionis given, it would only mean that the University has to grantaffiliation even if the particular institution does not conform tothe standards or does not meet the requirements of the Act,Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations of the University and may havethe effect of destroying the very autonomy of the University.Merely because the NCTE Act is a Central Statute it does not meanthat it has to be interpreted in a manner which destroys the veryfabric and edifice of the University. Therefore, there is a need tointerpret the provisions of the Central Act and the State Act,harmoniously so that both are able to survive in the respectivefields and also able to achieve their respective objectives. Nodoubt, Section 14(6) says that the University, on receipt of theorder under sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the NCTE Act, shallgrant affiliation to the institution where recognition has beengranted. However, this does not mean that as soon as the order ofrecognition from the NCTE is produced before the University, it isbound to close its eyes and straightaway grant affiliation. Itwould only mean that normally affiliation should not be refused onthe ground which are covered by Section 14(3) of the NCTE Act, asthe Council has already satisfied itself that the institute meetsthese requirements. However, this would not be an absolute rule andthe University can make a limited enquiry as to whether theinstitution has proper facilities, competent teaching staff, etc.in consonance with Section 14(3) of the NCTE Act. If it is foundthat the college does not have the adequate facilities, qualifiedteaching staff, adequate financial resources, etc. or permissionhas been obtained by deception or fraudulent means, it would beopen for the University to refer the matter to the NCTE forappropriate action. After all it is the University which confersthe degree. It is the credibility, reputation or goodwill of theUniversity which is at stake. Therefore, in our opinion, noinstitution can claim affiliation as a matter of right. 36. The NCTE Act has been enacted by Parliament under Entry 66of List I to coordinate with and determine the standards of teachertraining institutions as well as Entry 25 of List III. Theprovisions of the University Act regarding affiliation of teachertraining colleges and the conditions for grant and continuation ofsuch affiliation by the University shall remain operative. However, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the conditions that are prescribed by the University for grant andcontinuation will have to be in conformity with the norms andguidelines prescribed by the NCTE in respect of the mattersentrusted to it under the NCTE Act. We hasten to add that the grantof affiliation alone entitles the colleges to admit the studentsand also enables the students to write the examination, subject tothe training in the prescribed syllabi and fulfilling theattendance norms, and there cannot be any retrospective affiliationand the attendance before the affiliation would not be taken intoconsideration. No institution or college is entitled to admitstudents before the grant of affiliation by the University, and asobserved by the learned Chief Justice in Loordhu Ammal EducationalTrust’s case, that any college or institution admitting studentsfor a degree in the University even before the University accordsaffiliation is really committing fraud on those students and ischeating those students who are given admission, because thosestudents can be left in the lurch if ultimately affiliation is notgranted. We may add that it would be impermissible for the Court topermit the students of an unaffiliated institution to appear forthe examination conducted by the University under the interimorders of the Court or to direct the University to grantaffiliation with retrospective effect, as it would amount todirecting the University to disobey the statute to which it owe itsexistence and the regulations made by the University itself. 37. We have already noted that the NCTE in exercise of itspower under Section 32(2) of the Act has framed National Councilfor Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure)(Amendment) Regulations, 2006. Clause 2 of the amended Regulationprescribes that there should be at least 200 working days exclusiveof the period of the examination and admission etc. out of which atleast 40 working days for practical teaching in about 10 schools atupper primary/secondary/senior secondary level. Therefore, it isclear that the NCTE wants the candidates admitted to teachertraining institutions to undergo their curriculum for a prescribednumber of days. In the present case, the affiliation came to begranted by the NCTE in October, 2006 and only thereafter, theapplication for affiliation was moved by the institution.Considering the requirement of 200 working days and 40 days forexamination etc. it was impossible for the University to grantaffiliation for the academic year 2006-2007, and therefore theUniversity has rightly granted affiliation for the ensuing academicyear 2007-2008. Mr.P.R.Gopinathan appearing for NCTE has alsofairly conceded that the University or affiliating authority isrequired to affiliate an institution for the academic year, whichis viable in the light of the regulations framed by the NCTE. 38. The NCTE, pursuant to the queries made by this court, hasplaced on record a clarificatory note of the Regional Director ofNCTE, dated 04.10.2007, and the same is reproduced below:-1. The NCTE has revised the regulationswhich came into effect from 13.01.2006. As perthe new regulations, NOC from the concernedState Governments is not required to obtain bythe institutions for submission of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ application to NCTE. On receipt of theapplication from the institutions, the SRC-NCTE will process the applications and adeficiency letters will be issued to theinstitutions for submission of essentialdocuments required for further processing ofapplication. On satisfactory submission of theessential documents by the institution, acopy of the application will be sent to theState Governments concerned by NCTE seekingrecommendation. If the recommendation isnegative, the State Government/UTAdministration shall provide detailedreasons/grounds thereof, which could be takeninto consideration by the Regional Committeeconcerned while deciding the application. Ifno communication is received from the StateGovernment/UT Administration within thestipulated 60 days, it shall be presumed thatthe State Government/UT Administrationconcerned has no recommendation to make.However, the application will be processedand appropriate orders will be passed.2. The institutions should commence theCourse well within the academic Yearspecified by the concerned affiliatingauthority like Universities in cases of B.Ed.M.Ed., B.P.Ed., M.P.Ed., Courses and StateGovernment for D.T.Ed., C.P.Ed., Pre-Primaryetc. after obtaining Unconditional Recognitionorder from NCTE.3. As per Section 16 of the NCTE Act, 1993,the affiliating body shall affiliate suchinstitutions who have obtained Recognitionfrom NCTE under Section 14 or 15 of the NCTEAct, 1993. Whereas, the University oraffiliating authority will affiliate ainstitution for the academic year which isviable. If the academic year specified by theaffiliating body has already started beforethe institution obtained the recognitionorder, the affiliating body will decide onthe matter whether to affiliate theinstitution in the running academic year ifpossible or for the next academic Year.4. Yes, the academic year of the NCTE meansthe academic year prescribed by the concernedaffiliating University or affiliating body.5. As per the previous regulations, the lastdate for submission of applications by theinstitutions was 31st December of every yearfor the ensuing academic session. After theregulations were revised with effect from13.01.2006, the last date of application waswaived off and the institutions can submitapplication to NCTE throughout the year and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Regional Committees will process theapplication throughout the year. During thetime of previous regulation was in force, theinstitutions were granted recognitionmentioning the academic year. After the newregulations came into force as the processingwill be done throughout the year, the academicsession will not be mentioned and therecognition order will come into force witheffect from the date of issuance of the orderfor prospective effect. Further, it is to theinstitution to affiliate itself to theconcerned affiliating authority for theacademic session which is viable for offeringthe course.39. From the above, it is clear that only the affiliatingauthority like the University has to specify the academic yearwhich is viable. If the Academic Year specified by the NCTE hasalready started before the institution obtained the recognitionorder, the affiliating authority will have to decide whether toaffiliate the institution in the running academic year or for thenext academic year and the academic year of the course would meanthe academic year as prescribed by the concerned affiliatingUniversity or affiliating body. It has been clarified by theRegional Director that as per the revised procedure, theinstitution can submit an application to the NCTE throughout theyear and the Regional Committees will process the applicationthroughout the year and the academic session will not be mentionedin the recognition order and it is for the concerned affiliatingauthority to decide the academic session which is viable foroffering the course.40. Learned counsel appearing for the Madras Universityplaced for our consideration the guidelines framed by the MadrasUniversity with regard to the grant of provisional affiliation toB.Ed. Colleges, and the guidelines read as follows:-1. The last date for receipt of application from theEducational Agencies for starting new EducationColleges for the successive academic year will be31st October of every year and the cut off date forreceipt of the late application (i.e. receivedbeyond the statutory date of 31st October) will be10th December of that year, provided a penal fee ofRs.30,000/- per College/Institution will be collectedfor starting fresh private Colleges/Institutions.Applications received beyond 10th December will besummarily rejected without intimation.2. The applications received from the EducationalAgencies for starting of new self-financing EducationColleges to offer B.Ed. Degree Course will be takenup for consideration only after the Managementcomply with the requirements of getting approval(unconditional approval) from the N.C.T.E. Bangalore https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and GO/NOC from the State Government and submit thesame to the University on or before 31st March ofthat year.3. After receiving NOC and the unconditionalapproval from the NCTE, an Inspection Commissionwill be appointed.4. In some cases, the Inspection Commission wasappointed without NOC of Government of Tamil Nadubased on the order of High Court and also as per theinstructions of the NCTE.5. The Affiliation Committee at its meeting held on298.2006 has considered the D.O.Letter No.49-6/04/NCTE N&S, dated 31.5.2006 from the Chairperson,NCTE, New Delhi duly forwarded by the SpecialSecretary to Government, Higher Education (E1)Department, Government of Tamil Nadu regarding grantof affiliation to Education Colleges recognized bythe NCTE without insisting NOC from the StateGovernment together with the observation of theHon'ble Supreme Court that once recognition has beengranted by the NCTE under section 14(b) of the Act,every University (Examining Body) is obliged to grantaffiliation to such Institution and the Committee hasnoted the contents of the above letter andrecommended to the Syndicate for implementation. TheSyndicate at its meeting held on 25.9.2007 hasapproved the above recommendations.6. The Inspection Commission after inspecting inthe college will submit a report on theinfrastructural facilities such as Class Rooms,Accommodation, Laboratory, Equipment, Library, Staff,Furniture, Hostel facilities, Play ground etc. madeavailable by the Management for starting the self-financing Education College to offer one-year B.Ed.Degree course.7. The report of the Inspection Commission will besent to the management for the compliance report onthe deficiencies pointed out by the InspectionCommission.8. After receiving the compliance report, the matterwill be placed before the Affiliation Committee andthe Syndicate for consideration.9. The preferable last date for grant of affiliationis 31st August of every year for that academic year.41. The above guidelines are also acceptable to the otherconcerned Universities which are represented before us by theirrespective counsel. In our opinion, these guidelines would takecare of the grievance of the institutions that the Universities donot accept the application for affiliation unless accompanied byrecognition order. The institutions can apply simultaneously to theUniversities for affiliation but the application for affiliationshall be processed only after the grant of recognition by the NCTE.If the NCTE recognition is granted on or before 31st March of theyear, the University will consider the grant of affiliation subject https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the compliance of the conditions of the University statutes notinconsistent with the NCTE regulations and the affiliation would beliable to be granted for the same academic year on or before 31stAugust of that academic year. It has been assured by the counselappearing for the Universities that though the period of 150 daysis mentioned in the guidelines, the Universities will make effortsto complete the process of grant of affiliation ordinarily within aperiod of 90 days from the date of receipt of the NCTE order.Learned counsel for the Universities also assured that they willact on the communication from the NCTE to the concernedinstitution, granting recognition and it would be subject to thecondition that the gazette notification would be produced beforethe grant of affiliation. 42. In the result, in view of the foregoing discussion, thewrit petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, miscellaneouspetitions are also dismissed. js/pvSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.2. The Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Abishekapuram, Tirunelveli District.3. The Controller of Examinations, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Abishekapuram, Tirunelveli District.+ 1 cc to M/s. Raw & Reddy, Advocate SR No. 62077+ 1 cc to M/s. Kandavadivel Doraisami, Advocate SR No. 62107+ 1 cc to Mr. R. Suresh Kumar, Advocate SR No. 62114+ 1 cc to Mr. B. Rabu Manokar Advocate SR No. 62144+ 3 ccs to Mr. M. Sekar Advocate SR No. 62191+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.62182VC(CO)SR/11.1.2008 W.P.No.28304 OF 2007