Supreme Court of India
ABHYUDYA SANSTHAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 389
- Decided
- 12 May 2011
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- G S SINGHVI
Holding
The appellants are not entitled to any relief under Article 136 as they made patently false statements about NCTE recognition, and the appeals are dismissed.
Summary
The appellants, a group of educational institutions, filed Special Leave Petitions claiming they had been granted recognition by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) and sought interim orders directing the State Government to allot students to their D.Ed. courses. During the pendency of the petitions, the NCTE’s Western Regional Committee refused recognition to the institutions. The Supreme Court found that the appellants had deliberately misrepresented their recognition status, thereby polluting the judicial process. Consequently, the Court held that they were not entitled to any relief under Article 136 and dismissed the appeals. The Court imposed costs of Rs.2 lakh on each appellant, ordered compensation of Rs.1 lakh to each affected student, declared the students ineligible for degrees, and directed the Regional Committee to publish the list of such students.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants are entitled to relief under Article 136 of the Constitution despite making false statements about NCTE recognition.
- Whether the Supreme Court can direct regularisation of admissions made by institutions lacking recognition under the NCTE Act.
- Whether students admitted under such illegal admissions are eligible for degrees from the affiliating body.
- Whether costs and compensation can be imposed on appellants for misrepresentation and abuse of process.
- Application of the clean‑hands doctrine to Special Leave Petitions.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. 136
- National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993s. 12, s. 14, s. 15, s. 16, s. 17A, s. 20
Subjects
Article 136clean hands doctrinemisrepresentationNCTE recognitionillegal admissionsspecial leave petitioncosts and compensationteacher education regulations
Judgment
[2011] 7 S.C.R. 611
ABHYUDYA SANSTHA A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4305-06 of 2011)
MAY 12, 2011
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
1
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 -
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.
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
E 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 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
B 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
F 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
G 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]
1.2 Although, in the absence of cogent material, it is
H
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
0
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]
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
Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558; G.
Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Kamataka (1991) 3 SCC
261: .1991 (2) SCR 563; Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (2010)
2 SCC 114: 2009 (16) SCR 111 - referred to.
c Case Law Reference:
AIR 1963 SC 1558 Referred to. Para 16
1991 (2) SCR 563 Referred to. Para 16
D 2009 (16) SCR 111 Referred to: Para 16
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
4305-4306 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 7.01.2009 & 16.1.2009
E of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench,
Nagpur, in Writ Petition No. 2701 of 2008 in CAW No. 52 of
2009 in Writ Petition No. 2701 of 2008.
WITH
F C.A. Nos. 4307-4308, 4309-4310, 4311-4312, 4313-4314,
4315 & 4316 of 2011.
Shekhar Naphade, Ashok Srivastav, Himinder Lal, Sachin
J. Patil, Arun R. Pednekar, Sunil Kumar Verma, Somanath
G Padhan, Anagha, S. Desai, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, K.N. Rai,
Amitesh Kumar, Sanjay V. Kharde, Chinmoy A. Khaladkar, R.K.
Rathore, Rekha Pandey, S.S. Rawat, C.K. Sharma for the
appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
ABHYUDYA SANSTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 617
G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted. A
2. The only question which needs consideration in these
appeals is whether the appellants who had not been granted
recognition by the Western Regional Committee ofthe National
Council for Teacher Education and who did not get affiliation B
from the examining body in accordance with the provisions of
the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short,
'the Act') and the National Council for Teacher Education
(Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 (for
short, 'the Regulations') are entitled to question the order C
passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court,
Nagpur Bench whereby recognition granted to over 290
institutions was cancelled.
3. With a view to achieve the object of planned and
coordinated development for the teacher education system D
throughout the country and for regulation and proper
maintenance of norms and standards in the'teacher education
system and for matters connected therewith, Parliament
enacted the Act for the establishment of a Council to be called
the National Council for Teacher Education (for short, "the E
NCTE") with multifarious functions, powers and duties. Section
2(c) of the Act defines the term "Council" to mean a Council
established under sub-section (1) of Section 3. Section 2(i)
defines the term "recognised institution" to mean an institution
recognised under Section 14. Section 2(j) defines the term F
"Regional Committee" to mean a Committee established under
Section 20. Section 3 provides for establishment of the Council
which comprises of a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson, a
Member-Secretary, various functionaries of the Government,
thirteen persons possessing experience and knowledge in the G
field of education or teaching, nine members representing the
States and Union Territories Administration, three members of
Parliament, three members to be appointed from amongst
teachers of primary and secondary education and teachers of
recognised institutions. S~ction 12 of the Act enumerates
H
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 7 S.C.R.
A functions of the Council. Section 14 provides for recognition of
institutions offering course or training in teacher education.
Section 15 lays down the procedure for obtaining permission
by an existing institution for starting a new course or training.
Section 16 contains a non obstante clause and lays down that
B an examining body shall not grant affiliation to any institution or
hold examination for a course or training conducted by a
recognised institution unless it has obtained recognition from
the concerned Regional Committee under Section 14 or
permission for starting a new course or training under Section
c. 15. The mechanism for dealing with the cases involving violation
of the provisions of the Act or the rules, regulations, orders
made or issued thereunder or the conditions of recognition by
a recognised institution finds place in Section 17. By an
amendment made in July, 2006, Section 17-A was added to
0 the Act. It lays down that no institution shall admit any student
to a course or training in teacher education unless it has
obtained recognition under Section 14 or permission und~r
Section 15. Section 29 declares that the NCTE shall, in the
discharge of its functions and duties under the Act be bound
E by such directions on questions of policy as the Central
Government may give in writing from time to time and the
decision of the Central Government as to whether a question
is one of policy or not shall be final. Section 31(1) empowers
the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the
provisions of the Act. Section 31(2) specifies the matters in
F respect of which the Central Government can make rules. Under
Section 32(1) the Council can make regulations for
implementation of the provisions of the Act subject to the rider
that the regulations shall not be inconsistent with the provisions
of the Act and the rules made thereunder. Section 32(2)
G specifies the matters on which the Council can frame
regulations. Sections 12, 14 to 16 and 17-A of the Act, which
have bearing on the decision of these appeals read as under:
"12. Functions of the Council.- It shall be the duty of the
H Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring
ABHYUDYA SANSTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 619
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
planned and coordinated development of teacher A
education and for the determination and maintenance of
standards for teacher education and for the purposes of
performing its functions under this Act, the Council may-
(a) undertake surveys and studies relating to various
8
aspeds of teacher education and publish the result thereof;
{b) make recommendations to the Central and State
Governments, Universities, University Grants Commission
and recognised institutions in the matter of preparation of
suitable plans and programmes in the field of teacher C
education;
{c) coordinate and monitor teacher education and its
development in the country;
(d) lay .down guidelines .in respect of minimum D
qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in
schools or in recognised institutions;
(e) lay down norms for any specified category of courses
or training in teacher education, including the minimum E
eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of .
selection of candidates, duration of the course, course
contents and mode of curriculum;
{f) lay down guidelines for compliance by recognised
institutions, for starting new courses or. training and for F
providing physical and instructional facilities, staffing
pattern and staff qualifications;
(g) xxx xxx xxx
G
{h) xxx xxx xxx
(i) xxx xxx xxx
0) examine and review periodically the implementation of
H
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 7 S.C.R .
.
A the norms, guidelines and standards laid down by the
Council and to suitably advise the recognised institutions;
(k) xxx xxx xxx
(I) xxxxxx xxx
B
(m) xxx xxx xxx
(n) perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it
by the Central Government.
c 14. Recognition of institutions offering course or training
in teacher education.-(1) Every institution offering or
intending to offer a course or training in teacher education
on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition
under this Act, make an application to the Regional
D . Committee concerned in such form and in such manner
. as may be determined by regulations:
Provided that an institution offering a course or training in
teacher education immediately before the appointed day,
shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a
E
period of six months, if it has made an application for
recognition within the said period and until the disposal of
the application by the Regional Committee.
(2) The fee to be paid along with the application under sub-
F section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.
(3) On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee
from any institution under sub-section (1), and after
obtaining from the institution concerned such other
particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall,-
G
( a) if it is satisfied that such institution has
adequate financial resources, accommodation,
library, qualified staff, laboratory and that if fulfils
such other conditions required for proper
H
ABHYUDYA SANSTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 621
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
functioning of the institution for a course or training A
in teacher education, as may be determined by
regulations, pass an order granting recognition to
such institution, subject to such conditions as may
be determined by regulations; or
8
(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not
fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a),
pass an order refusing recognition to such
institution for reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided that before passing an order under sub- C
clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a
reasonable opportunity to the concerned institution
for making a written representation.
(4) xxx )()()( )()()(
D
(5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has
been refused shall discontinue the course or training in
teacher education from the end of the academic session
next following the date of receipt of the order refusing
recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3). E
(6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order
under sub-section (4),-
(a) grant affiliation to the institution, where F
recognition has been granted; or
(b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where
recognition has been refused.
15. Permission for a new course or training by recognised G
institution.- (1) Where any recognised institution intends to
start any new course or training in teacher education, it may
make an application to seek permission therefor to the
Regional Committee concerned in such Jorm and in such
manner as may be'.determined by regulations. H
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 7 S.C.R.
A (2) The fees to be paid along with the application
under sub-section (1 )·shall be such as may be prescribed.
(3) On receipt of an application from an institution
under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the
recognised institution such other particulars as may be
B
considered necessary, the Regional Committee shall,-
(a) if it is satisfied that such recognised institution has
adequate financial resources, accommodation, library,
qualified staff, laboratory, and that it fulfils such other
c conditions required for proper conduct of the new course
or training in teacher education, as may be determined by
regulations, pass an order granting permission, subject to
such conditions as may be determined by regulation; or
D (b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfil
the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order
refusing permission to such institution, for reasons to be
recorded in writing:
Provided that before passing an order refusing permission
E under sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall
provide a reasonable opportunity to the institution
concerned for making a written representation.
(4) xxx )()()( )()()(
F
16. Affiliating body to grant affiliation after recognition or
permission by the Council.- Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time being in force, no
examining body shall, on or after the appointed day,-
G ( a) grant affiliation, whether provisional or
otherwise, to any institution; or
(b) hold examination, whether provisional or
otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a
H recognised institution,
.
ABHYUDYA SANSTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 623
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
unless the institution concerned has obtained A
recognition from the Regional Committee
concerned, under section 14 or permission for a
course or training under section 15.
17-A. No admission without recognition.- No institution
8
shall admit any student to a course or training in teacher
education, unless the institution concerned has obtained
recognition under section 14 or permission under section
15, as the case may be."
4. In exercise of the power vested in it under Section 32, C
he Council has framed regulations in 1995, 2002, 2005 and
!007. Since we are concerned with the 2007 Regulations, the
·elevant provisions thereof are reproduced below:-
"5. Manner of making application and Time Limit 0
(1) An institution eligible under Regulation 4, desirous
of running a teacher education programme may·
apply to the concerned Regional Committee of
NCTE for recognition in the prescribed form in
triplicate along with processing fee and requisite E
documents.
(2) xxx xxx xxx
(3) xxx xxx xxx F
(4) xxx xxx xxx
(5) xxx xxx xxx
7. Processing of Applications
G
(1) The applicant institutions shall ensure submission
of applications complete in all respects. However,
in order to cover the inadvertent omissions or
deficiencies in documents, the office of the
Regional Committee shall point out the deficiencies H
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A within 30 days of receipt of the applications, which
the applicants shall remove within 90 days. No
application shall be processed if the processing
fees of Rs.40,000/- is not submitted and sucti
applications would be returned to the applicant
B institutions.
(2) Simultaneously, on receipt of application, a written
communication alongwith a copy of the application
form submitted by the institution(s) shall be sent by
the office of Regional Committees to the State
c Govemment/U.T. Administration concerned.
(3) On receipt of the communication, the State
Government/UT Administration concerned shall
furnish its recommendations on the applications to
D the office of the Regional Committee concerned of
the National Council for Teacher Education within
60 days from receipt. If the recommendation is
negative, the State Government/UT Administration
shall provide detailed reasons/grounds thereof with
E necessary statistics, which shall be taken into
consideration by the Regional Committee
concerned while deciding the application. If no
communication is received from the State
Government/UT Administration within the stipulated
F 60 days, it shall be presumed that the State
Government/UT Administration concerned has no
recommendation to make.
(4) After removal of all the deficiencies and to the
satisfaction of the Regional Committee concerned,
G the inspection of infrastructure, equipments,
instructional facilities etc, of an institution shall be
conducted by a team of experts called Visiting
Team (VT) with a view to assessing the level of
preparedness of the institution to commence the
H course. Inspection would be subject to the consent
ABHYUDYA SANSTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 625
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
of the institution and submission of the self-attested A
copy of the completion certificate of the building.
Such inspection, as far as administratively and
logistically possible, shall be in the chronological
order of the date of receipt of the consent of the
institution. In case the consent from more than one B
institution is received on the same day, alphabetical
order may be followed. The inspection shall be
conducted within 30 days of receipt of the consent
of the institution.
(5) )()()( )()()( )()()(
c
(6) )()()( )()()( )()()(
(7) )()()( )()()( xxx
xxx xxx D
(8) )()()(
(9) The institution concerned shall be informed, through
a letter, of the decision for grant of r~cognition or
permission subject to appointment of qualified
faculty members before the commencement of the E
academic session. The letter issued under this
clause shall not be notified in the Gazette. The
faculty shall be appointed on the recommendations
of the Selection Committee duly constituted as per
the policy of the State Govt/Central Govt/University/ F
UGC or the concerned affiliating body, as the case
may be. The applicant institution shall submit an
affidavit in the prescribed form that the Selection
Committee has been constituted as stated above.
A separate staff list with the details would be G
submitted in the prescribed form. The Regional
Committee would rely on the above affidavit and the
staff list before processing the case for grant of
• formal recognition.
H
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 7 S.C.R.
A (10) )()()( )()()( )()()(
(11) The institution concerned, after appointing the
requisite faculty/staff as per Regulation 7(9) above
and fulfilling the conditions under Regulation 7(10)
above shall formally inform the Regional Committee
8
concerned alongwith the requisite affidavit and staff
list. The Regional Committee concerned shall then
issue a formal recognition order that shall be
notified as per provision of the NCTE Act.
c (12) )()()( )()()( )()()(
(13) )()()( )()()( )()()(
8. Conditions for grant of recognition
D (1) An institution must fulfill all the prescribed conditions
related to norms and standards as prescribed by
the NCTE for conducting the course or training in
teacher education. These norms, inter alia, cover
conditions relating to financial resources,
E accommodation, library, laboratory, other physical
infrastructure, qualified staff including teaching and
non-teaching personnel, etc.
(2) In the first instance, an institution shall be
considered for grant of recognition for only one
F
course for the basic unit as prescribed in the norms
& standards for the particular teacher education
programme. An institution can apply for one basic
unit of an additional course from the subsequent
academic session. Hpwever, application for not
G .more than one additional course can be made in a
year.
(3) )()()( )()()( xxx
(4) . xxx xxx xxx
H
ABHYUDYA SANSTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 627
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
(5) )()()( )()()( )()()( A
(6) )()()( )()()( )()()(
(7) No institution shall be granted recognition under
these regulations unless it is in possession of
required land on the date of application. The land B
free from all encumbrances could be either on
ownership basis or on lease from Government/Govt
institutions for a period of not less than 30 years. In
cases where under relevant State/UT laws the
maximum permissible lease period is less than 30 C
years, the State Government/UT Administration law
shall prevail. However, no building could be taken
on lease for running any teacher training course.
(8) )()()( )()()( )()()(
D
(9) . )()()( xxx xxx
(10) At the time of inspection, the building of the
institution shall be complete in the form of a
permanent structure on the land possessed by .the E
institution in terms of Regulation 8(7), equipped with
all necessary amenities and fulfilling all such
requirements as prescribed in the norms and
standards. The applicant institution shall produce
the original completion certificate, approved F
building plan in proof of the completion of building
and built up area and other documents to the
Visiting Team for verification. No temporary
structure/asbestos roofing shall be allowed.
(11) )()()( xxx )()()(
G
(12) An institution shall make admission only after it
obtains order of recognition from the Regional
Committee concerned under Regulation 7(11 ), and
affiliation from the examining body. H
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A (13) to (16) xxx xxx XXX:'
5. Vide letter dated 2.2.1996, the NCTE issued guidelines
for ensuring that the training institutions are established keeping
in view the requirement of trained teachers in different States
8 and U.T. These guidelines read as under:
"1. The establishment of teacher training institutions by the
Government, private managements or any other agencies
should largely be determined by assessed need for trained
teachers. This need should take into consideration the
c supply of trained teachers from existing institutions, the
requirement of such teachers. in relation to enrolment
projections at various stages, the attrition rates among
trained teachers due to superannuation, change of
occupation, death, etc. and the number of trained teachers
D on the live register of the employment exchanges seeking
employment and the possibility of their deployment. The
States having more than the required number of trained
teachers may not encourage opening of new institutions
for teacher education or to increase the intake.
E
· 2. The States having shortage of trained teachers may
encourage establishment of new institutions for teacher
education and to increase intake capacity for various levels
of teacher education institutions keeping in view the
requirements of teachers estimated for the next 10-15
F
years.
3. Preference might be given to institutions which tend to
emphasise the preparation of teachers for subjects (such
as Science, Mathematics, English, etc.} for which trained
G teachers have been in short supply in relation to
requirement of schools.
4. Apart from the usual courses for teacher preparation,
institutions which propose to concern themselves with new
emerging specialities (e.g. computer education; use of
H
ABHYUDYA SANSTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 629
·. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
electronic media, guidance and counselling, etc.) should A
receive priority. Provisions for these should, however, be
made only after ensuring that requisite manpower,
equipment and infrastructure are available. These
considerations will also be kept in view by the institution
intending to provide for optional subjects to be chosen by B
students such as guidance and counselling, special
education, etc.
5. With a view to ensuring supply of qualified and trained
teachers for such specialities such as education of the C
disabled, non-formal education, education of adults, pre-
school education, vocational education, etc. special efforts
and incentives may be provided to motivate private
managements/voluntary organisations for establishment of
institutions, which lay emphasis on these areas ..
. . . D
6. With a view to promoting professional commitment .
among prospective teachers, institutions which can ensure
adequate residential .facilities for the Prfncipal and s_taffof
the institutions as well as hostel facilities for substantial
proportion of its enrolment should be encouraged. E
7. Considering that certain areas (tribal, hilly regions, etc.)
have found it difficult to attain qualified and trained
teachers, it would be desirable to encourage establishment
of training instit~tions in those areas. '
F
8. Institutions should be allowed to come into existence
only if the sponsors. are. able to ensure that they have
adequate material and manpower resources in terms, for
instance, of qualified teachers and other staff, adequate
buildings and other infrastructure (laboratory, library, etc.), G
a reserve fund and operating funds to meet the day-to-day
requirements of the institutions, including payment of
salaries, provision of equipment, etc. Laboratories,
teaching science methodologies and practicals should
· have adequate gas plants, proper fittings and regular H
I
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A supply of water, electricity, etc. They should also have
adequate arrangements. Capabilities of the institution for
fulfilling norms prepared by NCTE may be kept in view.
9. In the establishment of an institution preference needs
B to be given to locations which have a large catchment area
in terms of schools of different levels where student
teachers can be exposed to demonstration lessons and
undertake practice teaching. A training institution which has
a demonstration school where innovative and experimental
approaches can be demonstrated could be given
c preference."
6. For facilitating grant of recognition for establishment of
teacher training institutions in different parts of the country, four
Regional Committees including the Western Regional
D Committee at Bhopal (for short, 'WRC, Bhopal') were set up
by the NCTE. In 2006-2007,.WRC, Bhopal granted recognition/
permission to large number of colleges/institutions to start
B.Ed./D.Ed. courses in the four States falling within its
jurisdiction, i.e. Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and
E Goa. On receipt of complaints that grave irregularities were
committed by WRC, Bhopal in granting recognition/permission,
the Central Government (Ministry of Human Resource
Development) in exercise of the power vested in it under
Section 29 of the Act issued order dated 21.8.2007 and
F directed WRC, Bhopal not to grant recognition to any institution/
course till a comprehensive review was undertaken. On
23.8.2007, the Central Government constituted three member
Committee headed by Ms. Anita Kaul, Joint Secretary, Ministry
I
of Human Resource Development to conduct an in-depth
inquiry into the working of WRC, Bhopal. In its report, the
IG Committee highlighted the irregularities committed by WRC,
Bhopal in granting recognition to various institutions in the
States of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat without
taking into consideration the views of the concerned State
H Governments. After considering the report of the Committee,
ABHYUDYA SANSTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 631
. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
~he Central Government issued the following directions to the A
[NCTE:
"(a) The WRC, Bhopal will process all pending applications
ensuring, however, that it scrupulously takes into account
the views of the State Government on the issue of sanction B
. or rejection of applications for recognition. In case, '{VRC,
Bhopal differs with the views of the State Government, it
shall record specific reasons in writing in such case and
submit a special report to NCTE headquarters;
(b) NCTE shall expedite the study on the demand and C
supply of teachers/teaching capacity specially for the State
of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and
Chhattisgarh and;
(c) The recommendations in respect of amendments to D
NCTE Act and its Regulations shall be carefully examined
in consultation with Ministry of Law."
7. The aforesaid directions were considered in the 100th
meeting of WRC, Bhopal and the following norms were laid
down for considering the recommendations of the State E
Government:
"(a) If there is any positive recommendation from the State
Government, recognition/permission will be granted as per
the NCTE Regulations: F
(b) If the Government has not communicated any positive
or negative remarks within 60 days from the issuance of
the letter from the WRC to the concerned Government,
cases will be considered on merit basis:
G
(c) In case of the negative recommendation without any
justification, cases will be considered on merit basis;
(d) If the State Government's negative recommendations
are there in respect of a particular institution with H
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A justification and in the opinion of the Committee the
justification is genuine, the cases will be rejected. The
intimation of such cases will be sent to the NCTE
headquarters.
(e) If the WRC differs with the negative reasons/opinion of
B
. the State Government, cases will be forwarded to the
NCTE headquarters."
8. The appellant institutions submitted applications in 2006
and 2007 for grant of recognition for starting D.Ed course. The
C establishments of the appellants were inspected in March,
May, June and July 2008. After considering the inspection
reports, WRC, Bhopal issued letters to the appellants requiring
them to give clarification on some issues. The matter was
again considered in the meetings of WRC, Bhopal held in
D September/October 2008 in the light of the directives issued
by the Central Government and the appellants were informed .
that their cases will not be processed. This was done in the
back-drop of the recommendations made by the State
Government that there was no requirement of trained teachers
E in the State. In the cases of Rajarshi Sahoo Chatrapati
Education Society, Jagruti Shikshan Sanstha and Navyuvak
Shikshan Manda!, letters of intent were issued, but final
recognition was not granted under Section 14 of the Act read
with Regulation 8(12) of 2007 Regulations. The appeal filed by
F Navyuvak Sikshan Manda! under Section 18 of the Act was
· dismissed by the appellate Authority.
9. In the meanwhile, respondent Nos.6 and 7 filed writ
petition questioning the exercise undertaken by WRC, Bhopal
for grant of recognition to over 290 institutions. They alleged
G that recognition has been granted in total disregard of the
provisions of the Act and the Regulations and that the views of
the State Government were completely ignored. The Division
Bench of the High Court, after an in-depth examination of the
record produced before it and the relevant statutory provisions,
H quashed the recognitions granted by WRC, Bhopal.
ABHYUDYA SANSTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 633
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
10. Although, the appellants were not at all affected by the A
order of the Division Bench of the High Court because they had
hot been granted recognition by WRC, Bhopal, they-filed special
leave petitions and prayed for setting aside orders dated
7.1.2009 and 16.1.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court. They also filed applications for permission to file B
special leave petitions by stating that the orders passed by the
.High Court would adversely affect their right to continue the
D.Ed. course. The appellants pleaded that the High Court could
not have quashed the recognition granted by WRC, Bhopal
vVithout hearing the affected persons and without examining the c
issue of locus standi of the writ petitioners; They also claimed
that infrastructure has been created by investing huge amount
and cancellation of recognition will cause irreparable loss to
them. In the synopsis and list of dates, all the appellants made
~
categorical statement that after fo. !lowing the procedure
0
orescribed under the Act and the Regulations; the NCTE
ranted permission/recognition to them for starting D.Ed.
ourse. · ·
· 11. Since the Court was not apprised of the true status of
~he applications filed by the appellants for grant of recognition E
and patently wrong and misleading statements were made that
~
hey have been. duly recognised by the NCTE, this Court
ntertained th,e specia. I feave petitions along wi.th large number
of other similar cases filed by those who had been granted
. .recognition by WRC, Bhopal, issued notices and passed order F
qf status quo. Later on, further i_nterim orders were passed
directing the State Government to allot students to the appellants
tor·D. Ed course.
· 12. In the case of Abhyudya Sanstha, some interesting G
developments took place during the pendency of the special
leave petition. By an order dated 26.4.2009/3.5.2010, WRC,
Bhopal refused recognition to the appellant. The Writ Petition
filed by the institute was allowed by the Division Bench of the
High Court and WRC, Bhopal was directed to reconsider the
H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A appellant's plea for recognition. After remand, WRC, Bhopal
reconsidered the appellant's application and rejected the same
vide order dated 3.5.2010. The appeal preferred against that
order was dismissed by the competent authority. This time, the
appellant did not approach the Bombay High Court. Instead, it
B filed Writ Petition No. 6784 of 2010 in the Delhi High Court.
By an order dated 17 .1.2011, the learned Single Judge allowed
the writ petition and remitted the matter to WRC, Bhopal for
processing the applications of the appellant afresh. These
additional facts clearly demonstrate that on the date of filing the
C special leave petition, appellant Abhyudya Sanstha did not have
recognition in terms of Section 14 read with Regulation 7(11).
The position of the other appellants is no better. Three of them
got letters of intent but none was granted recognition. We have
· no doubt that if the appellants had not misrepresented the facts
and made wrong statement on the issue of their recognition by
0
WRC, Bhopal, this Court would not have entertained the special
leave petition, what to say of passing interim orders.
13. At the hearing, Shri Shekhar Naphade and Shri Ashok
Srivastava, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the
E appellants fairly stated that their clients were not granted
recognition by WRC, Bhopal and none of them was eligible to
admit the students to D. Ed. course, but submitted that the Court
may direct WRC, Bhopal to reconsider their applications for
recognition and protect the students who got admission on the
F basis of allotment made by the State Government so that they
may not face difficulty in getting employment on the basis of
the degrees etc. awarded by the affiliating body. Learned senior
counsel submitted that the statements made in the synopsis
and list of dates of the special leave petitions about grant of
G recognition by NCTE were not deliberate and the institutions
and the students may not be penalized for the lapse, which
inadvertently occurred at the time of drafting the petitions. Shri
Ashok Srivastava, learned senior counsel stated that his client
has not admitted any student on the strength of the interim order
H passed by this Court.
ABHYUDYA SANSTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 635
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
. 14. Shri Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the NCTE A
!;ubmitted that the Court may not issue any direction for
regularisation of admissions made by the appellants because
none of them had been granted recognition by WRC, Bhopal.
Learned counsel argued that in the absence of recognition by
the competent authority, the appellants are not entitled to s
conduct any teacher training course and, therefore, the students
admitted by them should not be allowed to reap the. benefits of
illegal admissions.
15. We have considered the respective submissions and
carefully examined the records. C
16. In our view, the appellants deserve to be hon suited
because they have not approached the Court with clean hands.
The plea of inadvertent mistake put fbrward by the learned senior
counsel for the appellants and their submission that the Court D
may take lenient view and order regularisation of the admissions
:already made sounds attractive but does not merit acceptance.
Each of the appellants consciously made a statement that it had
!:>een granted .recognition by the NCTE, which necessarily
implies that recognition was granted in terms of Section 14 of E
the Act read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the 2007 Regulations.
Those managing the affairs of the appellants do not belong to
the category of innocent, illiterate/uneducated persons, who are
not conversant with the relevant statutory provisions and the
court process. The very fact that each of the appellants had F
submitted application in terms of Regulation 7 and made itself
available for inspection by the team constituted by WRC, Bhopal
shows that they were fully aware of the fact that they can get
recognition only after fulfilling the conditions specified in the Act
and the Regulations and that WRC, Bhopal had not granted G
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
H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 7 S.C.R.
A 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. This view finds support
from plethora of precedents. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR
B 1963 SC 1558, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of
Kamataka (1991) 3 sec 261 and large number of other cases,
this Court denied relief to the petitioner/appellant on the ground
that he had not approached the Court with clean hands. In Hari
Narain v. Badri Das (supra), the Court. revoked the leave
c granted to the appellant and observed:
"It is of utmost importance that in making material
statements and setting forth grounds in applications for
special leave made ~nder Article 136 of the Constitution,
care must be taken not to make any statements which are
D inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with
applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes
statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the
petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray
the confidence of the Court by making statements which
E are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the
appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material
statements made by the appellant in his application for
special leave are inaccurate and ·misleading, and the
respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant may
F have obtained special leave from the Supreme Court on
the strength of what he characterises as
misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for
special leave, the Supreme Court may come to the
conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the
G appellant ought to be revoked."
In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka
(supra), the Court noted that the appellant had concealed the
fact that the award could not be made by the Land Acquisition
Officer within the time prescribed under Section 11A of the
H
ABHYUDYA SANSTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 637
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
_and Acquisition Act because of the stay order passed by the A
-ligh Court and observed:
"...... Curiously enough, there is no reference in the special
leave petitions to any of the stay orders and we came to
know about these orders only when the respondents B
appeared in response to the notice and filed their counter-
a
affidavit. In our view, the said interim orders have direct
bearing on the question raised and the non-disclosure of
the same certainly amounts to suppression of material
facts. On this ground alone, the special leave petitions are
liable to be rejected. It is well settled in law that the relief C
under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and
a petitioner who approaches this Court for such relief must
come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to
do so and suppresses material facts, his application is
liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the special D
leave petitions."
In Da/ip Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114. this
Court noticed the progressive decline in the values of life and
observed: E
"For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic
values of life i.e. "satya" (truth) and "ahimsa" (non-violence).
Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided
the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth
F
constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system
which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the
people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts
irrespective of the consequences. However, post-
Independence period has seen drastic changes in our
value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old G
ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so
intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to
take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and
suppression of facts in the court proceedings.
_J:L
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped
up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any
respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and
unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet
the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the
B courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is
now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute
the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of
justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief,
interim or final." ·
c 17. The question which remains to be considered is
whether the Court should direct regularisation of the admission
of the students, who were allotted to the appellants by the State
Government etc. pursuant to the directions given by this Court.
Although, in the absence of cogent material, it is not possible
D to record a finding that the students were party to the patently
wrong and misleading statement made by th~ appellants, the
Court cannot over.look 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
!:: Regulation 8(12), the appellants 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 ground much less justification to
F confer legitimacy upon the admission made by the appellants
in a clandestine manner. Any such order by the Court will 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, will not be able to
G 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, we do not consider
it proper to issue direction for regularising the admissions
made by the appellants on the strength of the interim orders
H passed by this Court.
ABHYUDYA SANSTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 639
[G.S. SINGHV~. J.]
18. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. Each of the A
appellants is saddled with costs of Rs.2 lacs, which shall be
deposited with the 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. B·
19. We also declare that none of the students, who had
taken admission 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 C
to any such student, the same shall not be treated valid for any
purpose whatsoever.
/ 20. WRC, Bhopal shall publish a list of the students, who
were admitted by the appellants pursuant to the interim orders
passed by this Court and forward the same to the Education D
Department of the Government of Maharashtra, which shall
circulate the same to all government and aided institutions so
that they may not employ the holders cif such degrees. ·
21. The appellants are directed to pay Rs.1 lac to each of E
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.
N.J. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Article 136"Sign in to search