BHAGWAN BUDHA PRATHMIK TECHNICAL TRAINING COLLEGE NIRMALIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

              (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 763


 BHAGWAN BUDHA PRATHMIK TECHNICAL TRAINING                    A
                COLLEGE NIRMALI
                        v.
        THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
         (Civil Appeal No. 9896 of 2010)
                                                              B
                  NOVEMBER 23, 2010
     [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]

     Administrative law: Administrative order - Power to
withdraw - Held: Power to issue an order includes power to C
withdraw the same. for valid reasons - If an administrative
order is based under an erroneous assumption of one's own
power and if it goes to the· root of the matter, the authority
concerned can certainly review it for valid reasons, and if that
is done, the withdrawal cannot be called to be a ma/a fide one D
- In the instant case, the earlier order granting recognition to
the appellant-institution was outside the powers of the State
Government, therefore, the Government was quite right in
rescinding the same by a subsequent order - National
Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - Education/ E
Educational institution.

    National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993:

     Object of the Act - Held: The Act was enacted to achieve
planned and coordinated development for teacher education · F
system throughout the country - The Act was a/so passed to
bring about the regulation and proper maintenance of norms
and students in teacher education system - Education!
Educational institution.
                                                              G
     ss. 14 and 16 - Power to grant recognition to teacher
training institute - Held: Vested with the NCTE after the
appointed day under the Act - The proviso to s. 14, however,
permits such an existing institution offering a course of
                            763                               H
    764   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A training in teacher education, to apply within a period of six
  months from the appointed day for recognition to the Regional
  Committee of the NCTE - The appellant institution did not
  make any such application - The State Government,
  therefore, cannot be directed to recognize the appellant for the
B earlier period, since that power vested with the NCTE after the
  appointed day.

         In 1987, the appellant-institution established a
    Teacher Training College and it proceeded to admit the
C   students pending the approval/recognition of its course,
    by the State Government. Subsequently, the appellant
    filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the State
    Government to grant the recognition. The High Court
    allowed the students to appear in the examination at their
    own risk stating that no right would enure to them merely
D   on that basis and their results would be published only
    after the grant of recognition. Accordingly, students
    appeared for the examination in January 1991. The State
    Government, however, did not give its decision on the
    aspect of recognition. On 28.5.1995, the Director of the
E   Education Department recommended the grant of
    approval from 1987 till 1995-97. Meanwhile several writ
    petitions were filed by the appellant and by its students
    which were disposed of with the direction to the
    Government to give decision on the aspect of
F   recognition.

      On 1.7.1995, the National Council for Teacher
  Education Act, 1993 came into force. The appellant did
  not take any steps to seek recognition thereunder. It
G merely made one more representation on 5.8.2005 to the
  Government to decide the grant of recognition. The
  students awaiting the results filed one more writ petition,
  which was dismissed. The Division Bench of High Court
  disposed of their appeal in view of the statement of the
  Government counsel that the recognition was under
H
   BHAGWAN BUDHAPRATHMIKTECHNICAL TRAINING             765
       COLLEGE NIRMALI v. STATE OF BIHAR

process. The appellant accordingly made another               A
representation on the same day i.e. 13.2.2007 to the
Education Commissioner pointing out the said order. The
Commissioner thereupon issued an order memo on
16.3.2007 wherein he recorded that in view of the NCTE
Act, the State Government had no authority to grant           B
approval/recognition, but, since the approval ought to
have been granted in view of inspection report, he
recommended that college can be considered to be
recognized w.e.f. 1987-89. The results were still not
declared. The appellant filed another writ petition. A        c
Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition
on the ground that under Sections 14 and 16 of the NCTE
Act, the institute which is giving teachers training has to
apply for its recognition to NCTE within six months of the
Act coming into force and since the appellant had not so      0
applied after the appointed day (under the NCTE Act), its
students were not qualified to appear in the examination.

    The appellant filed LPA against the said order.
Meanwhile, the State Government reviewed the order
memo dated 16.3.2007 and cancelled the same by order E
dated 2.9.2008. The Division Bench noted that the order
dated 16.3.2007 was withdrawn by the subsequent order
dated 2.9.2008. The Division Bench dismissed the LPA on
12.11.2008. While dismissing the LPA, the Division Bench
made it clear that its order would not preclude the F
appellant from challenging the legality of the order dated
02.09.2008 by means of an independent substantive ·
proceeding.

    The appellant accordingly filed another writ petition     G
to challenge the. order dated 02.09.2008. The Division
Bench noted that the subject of education was listed at
Entry No. 25 in List No. Ill (concurrent list in the 7th
Schedule to the Constitution of India) and, therefore, the
                                                              H
    766   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A NCTE Act was valid and was within the powers of the
   Central Government. The Division Bench held that after
   coming into force of the NCTE Act, there was no power
   with the State Government to grant recognition and, .
   therefore, the order rescinding the earlier
B recommendation for recognition could not be said to be
   illegal. The petition was dismissed by order dated
   9.2.2009 with cost quantified at Rs.30,000. The instant
  •appeals were filed challenging the order dated 12.11.2008
   and 09.02.2009.
G
        Dismissing the appeals with modification to the
    extent of deleting the cost imposed on the appellant, the
    Court

        HELD: 1. A power to issue an order includes a power
[) to withdraw the same for valid reasons. In the instant
   case, the State Government's order dated 16.03.2007
   recorded that after coming into force of the National
   Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act), it
   was no longer within the authority of the State
E Government to consider the matters relating to
   recognition. Yet, it was further recorded that because the
   approval ought to have been granted in view of the
   inspection report, the college can be considered to be
   recognized with effect from 1987-89 to 1995. In the
F subsequent order of withdrawal dated 02.09.2008, it was
   noted that after the application of the NCTE Act, 1993, the
   right to grant recognition was no longer with the State
   Government or with any other authority and it was for this
   reason that the State Government had withdrawn the
G earlier order dated 16.03.2007. If an administrative order
   is based under an erroneous assumption of one's own
   power and if it goes to the root of the matter, the authority
   concerned can certainly review it for valid reasons, and
   if that is so done, the withdrawal cannot be called to be
   a ma/a fide one. The appellant had challenged
H
   BHAGWAN BUDHAPRATHMIKTECHNICAL TRAINING            767
       COLLEGE NIRMALI v. STATE OF BIHAR

Government's order dated 2.9.2008 withdrawing its earlier    A
order dated 16.3.2007, and the order dated 2.9.2008
having been left undisturbed by the High Court by its
subsequent order dated 9.2.2009, a submission cannot
be entertained on the basis of previous orders in a writ
petition passed at a time when the earlier order dated       s
16.3.2007 was subsisting. [Para 19) [778-B-F]

    Sunil Kumar Parimal and Another v. State of Bihar and
Others 2007 (10) SCC 150 - referred to.

     2.1. Prior to 1995, the National Council for Teacher    C
Education (NCTE) had existed since about 1973 as a
government advisory body (and not as a separate
institution) to look after the development and progress of
"teacher education". The NCTE was then only a
department of the National Council of Educational            D
Research and Training (NCERTr The NCTE, in its
previous status since 1973, was an advisory body for the
Central and State Governments on all matters pertaining
to teacher education, with its Secretariat in the
Department of Teacher Education of the NCERT. Despite        E
its commendable work in the academic fields, it could not
perform essential regulatory functions, to ensure
maintenance of standards in teacher education and
preventing proliferation of sub-standard teacher
education institutions. The National Policy on Education     F
(NPE) 1986, and the Programme of Action thereunder,
envisaged N.CTE with statutory status and necessary
resources as a first step for overhauling the system of
teacher education. The NCTE Act came into force on
1.7.1995. The National Council for Teacher Education as      G
a statutory body came into existence in pursuance of the
NCTE Act, 1993 on 17.8.1995. [Para 22) [781-C-H]

    2.2. The NCTE Act was enacted to achieve planned
and coordinated development for teacher education
system throughout the Country. The Act was also              H
   768    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A passed to bring about the regulation and proper
    maintenance of norms and students in teacher education
    system. Sections 14 and 16 of Act are enacted with that
    purpose, and recognition of the teacher training institute
    vested with the NCTE after the appointed day. Every
B institution offering ~ course of training in teacher
    education is required to obtain a recognition from the
    Regional Committee of NCTE after the appointed day. The
    State Government cannot exercise that power after the
    appointed day. 'Appointed day' has been defined under
C Section 2(a) of the Act as the date of establishment of
    NCTE. After the appointed day, the State Government
    could not have conducted the examination and issued
    the certificate to the students of the appellant institution.
    Nor can the examining body hold examination of the
    students of a teacher training institute after the appointed
0
    day unless the institute is recognized by Regional
  . Committee of the NCTE. The provisions of the NCTE Act
    have to be implemented with full force in the interest of
    the education of the children whom these teachers would
    be subsequently teaching, the teacher-candidates
E themselves, and for bringing about proper standard and
    norms in the field of teachers' education. The State
    Government cannot be directed to recognize the
    appellant for the earlier period, since that power vests
    with the NCTE after the appointed day. The proviso to
F Section 14 of the Act, however, permits such an existing
    institution offering a course of training in teacher
    education, to apply within a period of six months from the
    appointed day for recognition to the Regional Committee
    of the NCTE. The training to become teachers consists
G of theoretical and practical aspects; and the performance
    is to be judged on both these aspects. A mere theoretical
    examination will not suffice. In the instant case, the
    institution has already closed down. The Board cannot
    ascertain the bonafides and genuineness of the claims
H of the students (including the entries concerning their
   BHAGWAN BUDHA PRATHMIK TECHNICAL TRAINING             769
       COLLEGE NIRMALI v. STATE OF BIHAR
practical training) after so many years to permit them to       A
appear for the examination. What facilities were available
in the appellant-institution at the relevant time could also
not be ascertained by the NCTE. Thus, the students of
the appellant cannot be permitted to .take the Board
examination since the appellant does not have the               B
recognition either from the State Government or from
NCTE. [Paras 20, 21, 22, 26, 28] [779-A-G-H; 784~C-D; 781-
B; 785-D-E]

    L. Muthukumar and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu and        C
Others 2000 (7) sec 618 - relied on.

    Zakir Hussain Primary Education v. State of Bihar
2010(12) sec 517 - distinguished

    N. M. Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1986         o
Supl. SCC 166; St. John's Teachers Training Institute (For
Women), Madurai and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and
Others 1993 (3) SCC 595; State of Maharastra v. Vikas
Sahebrao Roundale 1992 (4) SCC 435 - referred to.

     3. The agony of the students who might have joined         E
the appellant institution bonafide is apparent. The
appellant institution is in a backward area and the
students are coming from economically and socially
backward classes of the society. An institution claiming
to teach such students should conduct itself with all the       F
more responsibility and ought to be more careful and
diligent. When the NCTE Act came into force in 1995, the
institution should have applied to the concerned
authorities diligently within the time stipulated. Having not
so applied thereunder, it is the appellant institution which    G
is responsible for the situation in which the students
have landed. Even prior to the NCTE Act coming into
force, inspite of High Court's order dated 3.11.1990, the
appellant did not submit the application for inspection of
the institution and the required particulars in the             H
    770    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A prescribed proforma to the State Government until
  27.3.1993. The students also sought their remedy
  belatedly in the year 1998 by filing writ petition for the
  declaration of the result of the examination of the 1987-
  1989 batch held on 24.1.1991 (conducted pursuant to the
B order of the High Court dated 3.11.1990). By the time this
  petition was filed, the NCTE Act had already come into
  force on 1.7 .1995. Thus, the appellant and the students
  were also not diligent in furthering their cause, for
  reasons which are not stated. The State Government
c alone cannot be blamed for the fate of the students for
  its initial inaction. Even so, the part of the impugned order
  imposing cost of Rs. 30,000/- on the appellant was not
  called for. The same is deleted. [Paras 29, 30] [786-B-H;
  787-A-B]
D                       Case Law Reference:
          2001 (1 O) sec 150    referred to          Para 20
          2010(12) sec 517      distinguished        Para 23

E         1986 Supl. sec 166    referred to          Para 24
          1993 (3) sec 595      referred to          Para 24
          2000 (7) sec 618      referred to          Para 24
          1992 (4) sec 435      referred to          Para 24
F
         CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9896 ·
    of 2010.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.2008 of the
G High Court of Patna in LPA No. 780 of 2007.

                               WITH

    Civil Appeal No. 9897 of 2010.

          K.V. Vishwanathan, Neeraj Shekhar, Ashutosh Thakur,
H
   BHAGWAN BUDHA PRATHMIK TECHNICAL TRAINING                771
       COLLEGE NIRMALI v. STATE OF BIHAR

Sishir Pinaki, Ravi C. Prakash, and C.D. Singh for the             A
Appellant.

     Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Lakshmi Raman Singh,
Amitesh Kumar, Ravi Kant, Anup Kumar and Amit Pawan for
the Respondents.                                                   B

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    GOKHALE J. 1. Leave Granted.

     2. These two appeals raise the questions as to whether        C
after coming into force of the National Council for Teacher
Education Act 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NCTE Act')
the State Gcvernments have the power to grant recognition to
the colleges which train the teachers, and whether students from
the colleges not recognized by National Council for Teacher
                                                                   0
Education (in short NCTE) can be permitted to appear for the
requisite examination to become teachers. Since both these
appeals are filed by the same institution, they are being
disposed of by a common judgment.

    3. Both these matters have had a chequered history. There      E
have been several rounds of litigation which are being recorded
herein below.

      4. The appellant claims to be an institution set up by the
minority Buddhist religious community. The appellant has · F
established a Teachers' Training College at Nirmali, District
Supaul (Bihar), in the year 1987. It claims that the Chief
Minister's Secretariat instructed the Director, Research and
Training, Primary Education, Patna (vide a letter dated
13.02.1987) to issue a permission to the appellant to establish
this minority educational institution. Thereupon, the appellant G
proceeded to admit students pending the approval/recognition
of its course, by the State Government for training of the
students to become primary teachers.

                                                                   H
    772     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A      5. The appellant waited for the order of recognition for more
  than three years, and thereafter filed a Writ Petition bearing
  CWJC No. 5084 of 1990 in the High Court of Patna, seeking
  a direction to the State Government to grant the recognition.
  The prayers in the petition were two-fold. Firstly, a direction to
B the State Government to consider and finally dispose of the
  matter regarding recognition, and secondly, a direction to the
  Bihar School Examination Board (for short-Board) to allow the
  students of the appellant institution to appear for the ensuing
  primary teachers training examination. The appellant claimed
c that two batches of its students had completed their course in
  the meanwhile, i.e. 1987-89 and 1988-90. A Division Bench
  of the High Court issued three-fold directions on that petition
  vide its order dated 3.11.1990 :

                (i) to the State Government to decide one way or
0         the other the question of recognition of the institution and

                (ii) to the Board, if it was so satisfied, as to the bona
          tides and genuineness of the claims of the students of
          the two batches, to allow them to appear for the
E         examination.

                (iii) to the Secretary of the appellant college also,
          to submit full particulars of its students (not exceeding
          100 in number for each session) within 10 days from the
          date of the order. The High Court, however, made it clear
F         that the students appearing in the examination will be
          appearing at their own risk and no right shall enure to
          them merely on that basis. Their results will not be
          published until the question of recognition of institution
          is finally decided by the State Government, and the
G         publication of results will abide by the final decision in
          the recognition matter, that is to say, results will be
          published only in case recognition is granted.

      6. Accordingly, students of the appellant institution
H appeared for the examination conducted by the Board in
   BHAGWAN BUDHA PRATHMIK TECHNICAL TRAINING          773
 COLLEGE NIRMALI v. STATE OF BIHAR [H.L. GOKHALE, J.)

January 1991. However, the decision of the State Government           A
on the aspect of recognition was not forthcoming, and hence
the appellant institution filed the second Writ Petition bearing
CWJC No.293 of 1992. When this Writ Petition was heard, it
was pointed out on behalf of respondents that the appellant had
yet not submitted the application for inspection and grant of         B
recognition in proper proforma, and other requirements were
also not fulfiled. In view of this position, the Division Bench
declined to pass any direction in this behalf. It, however, granted
liberty to the appellants to apply afresh in proper proforma,
which shall be considered and disposed of by the concerned            c
authorities in accordance with law. Thus, this petition was
disposed of by order dated 28.8.1992.

     7. It is the case of the appellant that they did furnish the
necessary particulars with an application on 27.03.1993,
followed by a reminder dated 27 .11.1994, with a request to           D
carry out the inspection of the institution for necessary approval.

     8. It appears that the inspection was accordingly carried
out, and a report recommending grant of approval was made
by the Director, Research and Development, Education                  E
Department on 28.05.1995. He recommended grant of approval
from 1987 till 1995-97. Another three member committee
carried out one more inspection and made a similar
recommendation to the Special Secretary to the Government.

      9. Since, the recognition was still not forthcoming, some
                                                                      F
of the students, namely one Vidyanand Choupal and others
filed a Writ Petition bearing CWJC No. 517 of 1998 and
prayed for a writ of mandamus that their results be declared
for the examination which was conducted on 24.01.1991 for the
training session of 1987-89. The Learned Single Judge who             G
heard the matter noted that the college was net recognized in
spite of the earlier order dated 3.11.1990 in CWJC No.5084
of 1990, which order had also made it clear that the results can
not be declared until recognition is granted. The Learned Single
Judge, therefore, disposed of this third Writ Petition by order       H
    774    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A   dated 28.01.1998 with a direction to the Government to pass
    a final order on the question of recognition.

        10. In the meanwhile, the NCTE Act had already come into
  force on 1.7.1995, but the appellant did not take any steps to
8 seek recognition thereunder. It merely made one more
  representation on 05.08.2005, that is some ten years later to
  the State Government for grant of recognition. The students who
  were stated to be waiting for the results filed one more Writ
  Petition at this stage bearing CWJC No.1829 of 2006. That
  petition came to be dismissed by a Single Judge, and hence
C those students viz. Ajay Kumar Narala and others filed LPA No.
  609 of 2006. The Division Bench disposed of that appeal by
  order dated 13.02.2007 in view of the statement by the counsel
  on behalf of the Government that the recognition will be
  processed very soon and in all probability, the decision shall
D be taken finally latest by four weeks.

       11. The appellants accordingly made another
  representation on the same day i.e. 13.02.2007 to the
  Education Commissioner pointing out this order in LPA No.609
E of 2006. The Commissioner for the Human Resource
  Development Department thereupon issued order Memo No.
  57 on 16.03.2007. He recorded in this order that the
  departmental inspection committee had requested for the grant
  of recognition to the college from 1987-89 onwards. In
F paragraph 3, of his order the Commissioner in fact noted that
  in the meanwhile, the NCTE Act had come into force, but the
  college had not made any application to NCTE for its
  recognition as required under that Act. The approval/recognition
  was no longer within the power of the State Government.
G However, since the approval ought to have been granted in view
  of the inspection report, he recommended that college can be
  considered to be a recognized one w.e.f. 1987-89. Para 3 of
  this order reads as follows: -

               "(3) In this process, from 17 August 1995 the
H         National Council for Education Teachers education bill 93
   BHAGWAN BUDHAPRATHMIKTECHNICAL TRAINING                   775
 COLLEGE NIRMALI v. STATE OF BIHAR [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
     was passed. Under the act, the right to grant approval to      A
     the training colleges is now given to the National Council
     for Teachers Education. Thus in the aforesaid
     circumstances the concerned college has to make an
     application for permission before the National Council for
     Teachers Education (Eastern Zone, Bhubneshwar). The            B
     matter pertaining to approval/recognition is not within the
     power of the State Govt. But the college can be considered
     to be recognized one with effect from 1987-89 to 1995,
   . because the approval ought to have been granted in view
     of the inspection report."                                     c
      12. Inasmuch as, the results were still not being declared,
the appellant filed another Writ Petition bearing CWJC No.7055
of 2007. A Single Judge of the Patna High Court who heard
the matter referred to Sections 14 and 16 of the NCTE Act. He
noted that under Section 14 of the Act, the institute which is      D
giving teachers training has to apply for its recognition to NCTE
within six months of the Act coming into force. The appellant
had not so applied after the appointed day. The students of an
institution recognized by NCTE alone can appear for the
qualifying examination as per Section 16 of the Act. The            E
Learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the petition by his
order dated 24.08.2007.

     13. The appeilant filed LPA No.780 of 2007 to challenge
the order dated 24.08.2007. The State Government, however,          F
reviewed the recommendation for recognition dated
16.03.2007 and cancelled that order memo by its order dated
02.09.2008, which was on the basis of the above referred
Sections 14 and 16. Having referred to the facts of the case
and the two Sections, this order dated 02.09.2008 recorded          G
as follows: -

         "Under the aforesaid facts it becomes clear that after
    the application of the National teachers training council
    (N.C.T.E.) Act 1993, the right to grant recognition to the
                                                                    H
    776     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         training colleges is the authority of the regional council,
          National council for Teacher education and not of the State
          Government or of any other authority. It is also laid down
          in the order memo 57 dated 16.03.07 that now it is not
          within the authority of the State Government to consider
B         matters relating to recognition.

                Hence it is clear that the order memo 57 dated
          16.3.2007 is not relevant to the provisions of the N.C.T.E.
          act 1993. Henceforth, after reviewing the order memo 57
          dated 16.3.07 is being cancelled as per the order of the
c         Government."

       14. Therefore, when LPA No.780 of 2007 reached before
  the Division Bench on 12.11.2008, the Division Bench noted
  that the order Memo No. 57 dated 16.03.2007 had been
D withdrawn by the subsequent order dated 02.09.2008. In view
  thereof, the Division Bench had no option but to dismiss the
  LPA. It is this order dated 12.11.2008 which is challenged in
  the first Special Leave Petition No.6511 of 2009.

       15. While dismissing LPA No.780 of 2007, the Division
E Bench made it clear that the order of the Division Bench will
  not preclude the appellant from challenging the legality and
  correctness of the order dated 02.09.2008 by means of an
  independent substantive proceeding.

F       16. The appellant accordingly filed another Writ Petition
  bearing CWJC No.18181 of 2008 to challenge this order dated
  02.09.2008. Two points were raised before the Division Bench.
  Firstly, with respect to the legality of the NCTE Act. On this
  aspect the Division Bench noted that the subject of education
G was listed at Entry No. 25 in List No. Ill (concurrent list in the
  7th Schedule to the Constitution of India) and, therefore, the
  enactment was within the powers of the Central Government
  and could not be held to be bad on account of legislative
  competence. Secondly, it was argued that the State
H Government could not have rescinded the impugned order. The
   BHAGWAN BUDHA PRATHMIK TECHNICAL TRAINING                 777
 COLLEGE NIRMALI v: STATE OF BIHAR [H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
Division Bench noted that after coming into force of the NCTE       A
Act, there is no power to grant recognition retained with the
State Government, and therefore the order rescinding the
earlier recommendation for recognition could not be said to be
illegal. The Court dismissed the petition by its order dated
9.2.2009 with cost quantified at Rs.30,000/- to be paid to the      B
State Government, the Union Government and NCTE in equal
proportion. It is this order dated 09.02.2009 which is challenged
in the second Special Leave Petition No. 9378 of 2009.

     17. As stated earlier, the only question which is to be        C
considered in both these matters is whether the State
Government had the authority to issue the order dated
16.03.2007 granting recognition for the period 1987-95 when
the NCTE Act had already come in force way back in July 1995.
Consequently, whether there was any error on the part of the
State Government in rescinding the order dated 16.03.2007 by        D
its subsequent order dated 02.09.2008. ·

     18. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant assailed the two impugned orders
in the two appeals and particularly the High Court's order dated    E
09.02.2009 on various grounds. He submitted that the High
Court has erred in not interfering with the order of the State
Government dated 02.09.2008, withdrawing the earlier order
of recognition dated 16.03.2007. He pointed out that during the
period when the order of recognition dated 16.03.2007 was           F
subsisting, the appellant had filed one more Writ Petition CWJC
No.6991 of 2007 for the declaration of the results of the two
batches of 1987-89 and 1988-90, and that direction had been
given by a Learned Single Judge on 06.05.2008, and the same
was left undisturbed by a Division Bench by dismissing the          G
appeal filed by the Board being LPA No.550 of 2008 by its
order dated 22.08.2008. He submitted that, in fact, because
of the non-implementation of the order dated 06.05.2008, the
appellant has filed a contempt petition bearing MJC No. 1747
of 2008, and with a view to avoid the action in contempt the
                                                                    H
    778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A respondents have withdrawn the recognition order dated
  16.03.2007, and the withdrawal was mala fide.
         19. Now, as far as this submission is concerned, a power
    to issue an order includes a power to withdraw the same for
    valid reasons. In the instant case it is material to note that even
8
    the order dated 16.03.2007 recorded that after coming into
    force of the NCTE Act, it was no longer within the authority of
    the State Government to consider the matters relating to
    recognition. Yet, it was further recorded that because the
C   approval ought to have been granted in view of the inspection
    report, the college can be considered to be recognized one with
    effect from 1987-89 to 1995. In the subsequent order of
    withdrawal dated 02.09.2008, the above fact has been
    recorded, and then it is noted that after the application of the
    NCTE Act 1993, the right to grant recognition is no longer with
D   the State Government or with any other authority. It is for this
    reason that the State Government has withdrawn the earlier
    order dated 16.03.2007. If an administrative order is based
    under an erroneous assumption of one's own power and if it
    goes to the root of the matter, the authority concerned can
E   certainly review it for valid reasons, and if that is so done, the
    withdrawal can not be called to. be a mala fide one. The
    appellant had challenged Government's order dated 2.9.2008
    withdrawing its earlier order dated 16.3.2007, and the order
    dated 2.9.2008 having been left undisturbed by the High Court
F   by its subsequent order dated 9.2.2009, now a submission
    cannot be entertained on the basis of previous orders in Writ
    Petition CWJC 6991/2007 passed at a time when the earlier
    order dated 16.3.2007 was subsisting.

G        20. It was then submitted on behalf of the appellant that
    prior to the coming into force of NCTE Act, it was the State
    Government which was authorized to grant recognition and that
    the NCTE Act has been held to be a prospective legislation in
    Sunil Kumar Parimal and Another Vs. State of Bihar and
    Others reported in [2007 (10) SCC 150]. It is contended that
H
  BHAGWAN BUDHA PRATHMIK TECHNICAL TRAINING                   779
COLLEGE NIRMALI v. STATE OF BIHAR [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
the appellant is not asking for any recognition for a period         A
subsequent to the act coming into force. In fact thereafter the
appellant institution has been closed down. Appellant submits
that since the Act is silent about the period prior to the NCTE
Act coming into force, the State Government continues to be
the authority to grant recognition for this earlier period. With     B
respect to this submission we must note that in the case of
Sunil Kumar Parimal (supra) the examination Board had failed
to discharge its function of conducting examination of Tirhut
 Physical Education College, Muzaffarpur in spite of repeated
directions from the State Government. As seen from para 19           c
of the judgment, the college had already been recognized by
the State Government. The students had completed their course
prior to the derecognition of the college by NCTE. It is due to
the sheer inefficiency of the Board that the students were not
permitted to take their examination. In view of these peculiar
                                                                     0
facts of that case this Court gave the direction to conduct their
examination by specifically invoking Article 1.42 of the
Constitution. As against that, in the instant case there was no
such direction from the State Government at any point of time
to allow the students of the appellant college to take their
examination, nor was any formal order of recognition issued by       E
the State Government prior to the NCTE Act coming into force.
In the instant case, the appellant is asking for a direction for
the students of batches from 1987-89 to 1995-97 to be
permitted to appear in the examinations in the year 1994-97
or thereafter. This would amount to allowing the students to take    F
their examination after the NCTE Act coming into force, when
the institution conducting the course was never recognized
either by the State Government or by NCTE. Obviously that can
not be done in the teeth of Section 16 of the Act.
                                                                     G
      21. Nor can the State Government be directed now to
recognize the appellant for the earlier period, since that power
vests with the NCTE after the appointed day. The proviso to
Section 14 of the Act however permits such an existing
institution offering a course of training in teacher education, to   H
    780     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A apply within a period of six months from the appointed day for
  recognition to the Regional Committee of the NCTE. Appellant
  has not made any such application. Section 16 (b) lays down
  thereafter that after the appointed day no examining body shall
  hold examination for a course or training conducted by an
B institution, unless it has obtained a recognition from the
  Regional Committee of NCTE. Sections 14 (1) and 16 read
  as follows:-

                "14. Recognition of institutions offering course
          or training in teacher education - (1) Every institution
c         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 Committee concerned in such form and in such
          manner as may be determined by regulations:
D
                 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 period of six months, if it has made an
E         application for recognition within the said period and until
          the disposal of the application by the Regional
          Committee."

                "16. Affiliating body to grant affiliation after
          recognition of permission by the Council -
F         Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
          time being in force, no examining body shall, on or after
          the appointed day,-

                (a) grant affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise,
G         to any institution; or

               (b) hold examination, whether provisional or
          otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a
          recognized institution,

H         unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition
   BHAGWAN BUDHAPRATHMIKTECHNICAL TRAINING            781
 COLLEGE NIRMALI v. STATE OF BIHAR [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
    from the Regional Committee concerned, under section 14          A
    or permission for a course or training under section 15."

      22. 'Appointed day' has been defined under Section 2 (a)
of the Act as the date of establishment of National Council for
Teacher Education. Section 3 (1) of the Act lays down that with      B
effect from a date as the Central Government may by notification
in the official gazette appoint, there shall be established a
council to be called the National Council for Teacher Education.
This being the position, after that date the State Government
could not have conducted the examination and issued the
certificate to the students of the appellant institution. Prior to   C
1995, the NCTE had existed since about 1973 as a government
advisory body (and not as a separate institution) to look after
development and progress of "teacher education". The NCTE
was then only a department of the National Council of
Educational Research and Training. The National Council for          D
Teacher Education, in its previous status since 1973, was an
advisory body for the Central and State Governments on all
matters pertaining to teacher education, with its Secretariat in
the Department of Teacher Education of the National Council
of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). Despite its.           E
commendable work in the academic fields, it could not perform
essential regulatory functions, to ensure maintenance of
standards in teacher education and preventing proliferation of
substandard teacher education institutions. The National Policy
on Education (NPE) 1986, and the Programme of Action                 F
thereunder, envisaged a National Council for Teacher
Education with statutory status and necessary resources as a
first step for overhauling the system of teacher education. The
NCTE Act came into force on 1. 7.1995, vide S.O. 620(E),
dated 1.7.1995, published in the Gazettee of India, Ext. Pt. II,.    G
S.3(ii), dated 10. 7.1995 by exercising the power under Section
1 (3) of the NCTE Act. The National Council for Teacher
Education as a statutory body came into existence in
pursuance of the NCTE Act, 1993 (No. 73 of 1993) on
17.8.1995.                                                           H
    782    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A       23. The appellant relied upon the judgment of this Court
  in Civil Appeal No. 8239-8240 of 2009 decided on 16.03.2010
  in the case of Zakir Hussain Primary Education Vs. State of
  Bihar. In that matter also the relief sought was with respect to
  the period from 1979-81to1994-96. What is however important
B to note is that in that matter the Director, Research and Training,
  Primary Education, Bihar had granted recognition to the said
  institution on 26.04.1995 which was prior to the Act coming into
  force, and the order dated 4.9.1999 withdrawing that
  recognition was challenged in that petition. In that matter, it was
c noted by this Court that the Writ Petition and LPA of the
  institution were dismissed by the High Court only on the ground
  of delay and latches, and since it was dismissed in limini, the
  Board did not get the opportunity to file its counter. It is for this
  reason that this Court interfered with the orders passed by the
  Single Judge as well as by Division Bench and remanded the
0
  matter to the High Court for reconsideration. That case is quite
  dis-similar to the present case. In the present matter although
  the inspection was carried out earlier, the order of recognition
  was not issued by the State Government prior to the NCTE Act
E coming into force, and after the act came into force it no longer
  had the authority to issue the same.

      24. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand
  pressed into service the judgments of this Court in N.M.
  Nageshwaramma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in
F [1986 Supl. SCC 166) , St. John's Teachers Training Institute
  (For Women), Madurai and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
  and Others reported in [1993 (3) sec 595) and L.
  Muthukumar and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
  reported in [2000 (7) SCC 618). In Nageshwaramma, this court
G observed in para 3 as follows:-

                'The Teachers Training Institutes are meant to
          teach children of impressionable age and we cannot let
          loose on the innocent and unwary children, teachers who
          have not received proper and adequate training. True
H
   BHAGWAN BUDHAPRATHMIKTECHNICAL TRAINING            783
 COLLEGE NIRMALI v. STATE OF BIHAR [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]

    they will be required to pass the examination but that may      A
    not be enough. Training for a certain minimum period in
    a property organized and equipped Training Institute is
    probably essential before a teacher may be duly
    launched."
                                                                    B
     The observations of this Court in para 12 of State of
Maharastra Vs. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale reported in [1992
(4) sec 435) are also quite instructive:-

    " ........ For equipping such trainee students in a school or
    a college, all facilities and equipments are absolutely         C
    necessary and institutions bereft thereof have no place to
    exist nor entitled to recognition. In that behalf compliance
    with the statutory requirement is insisted upon. Slackening
    the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of
    education and examining system are detrimental to the           D
    efficient management of the education."

      25. In L. Muthukumar's case (supra) this Court held that
mere passing of a public examination is not enough. It must be
coupled with proper training in a recognized institution.
                                                                    E
Candidates having undergone training in institutions which do
not have recognition may at the highest get the declaration of
their exam results, but would not be entitled to marks sheets,
certificates or diplomas in teacher training. The Court observed
in paragraph 14 that before the teachers are allowed to teach
innocent children, they must receive appropriate and adequate       F
training in a recognized training institute satisfying the
prescribed norms, otherwise the standard of education and
careers of children will be jeopardized.

     26. In the instant case, the prayer of the appellant is that   G
the candidates of all these earlier years be permitted to give
the board examination, and later on, be given the degree of
Bachelor of Education and Training (BET). The very first order
of the High Court dated 3.11.1990 had laid down two
conditions for the same, viz. that the students were to be          H
    784   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A allowed for the examination only if the board was satisfied as
  to the bonafides and genuineness of the students, and secondly
  the results were not to be published until the question of
  recognition was decided finally by the State Government. The
  order also made it clear that the students were to appear for
B the examination at their own risk and no rights were to enure
  therefrom. The training to become teachers consists of
  theoretical as well as practical aspects. The performance of the .
  candidates is to be judged on both these aspects and a mere ·
  theoretical examination does not suffice. The students intending
c to become teachers have to undergo practical training. The
  institution is now closed down. The Board cannot ascertain the
  bonafides and genuineness of the claims of the students
  (including the entries concerning their practical training) after
  so many years to permit them to appear for the examination.
  What facilities were available in this institution at the relevant
D
  time can also not be now ascertained by NCTE. Thus the
  students of the appellant cannot be permitted to take the Board
  examination since the appellant does not have the recognition
  either from the State Government or from NCTE. Thus, the two
  requisite conditions are not fulfilled.
E
       27. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the
  students of the appellant institution should not be made to suffer
  and it was pointed out that this Court by an interim order passed
  in these appeals on 25.05.2009 has allowed these students to
F appear in the examination in view of the decision in Sunil Kumar
  Parimal's case (supra). We must however note that this order
  also made it .clear that the examination was to be conducted
  and the results were to be declared subject to the decision of
  the petition. That apart, as pointed out by the counsel for the
G respondents, in the event these candidates get the degrees or
  diplomas, they will claim seniority in Government Employment
  over teachers properly trained in recognized institutions and that
  would be certainly prejudicial to the public interest. As held in
  the case of L. Muthukumar (supra), if such candidates are
H issued mark-sheets, certificates or diplomas in teacher training,
   BHAGWAN BUDHA PRATHMIK TECHNICAL TRAINING          785
 COLLEGE NIRMALI v. STATE OF BIHAR [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]

that will defeat the objective of having teachers with proper        A
training as expected under the NCTE Act. It will cause serious
damage to the education of the children who would be studying
under these teachers. This Court has observed in para 18 in
St. John's Teachers Training Institute (supra), that the teachers
appearing for the examination on the basis of interim orders         B
cannot derive any benefits on the basis of such interim orders.
Whatever education and training these students have taken in
the appellant's institution may help them get employment in
some private schools as noted in L. Muthukumar's case
(supra), or they may otherwise seek their remedy against the         c-
appellant.

     28. As the preamble of the NCTE Act lays down it is
enacted to achieve planned and coordinated development for
teacher education system throughout the Country. The Act is
also passed to bring about the regulation and proper                 D
maintenance of norms and students in teacher education
system. Sections 14 and 16 of Act are enacted with that
purpose, and recognition of the teacher training institute vests
with the NCTE after the appointed day. These provisions answer
the two questions which are set out at the beginning of this         E
judgment. Every institution offering a course of training in
teacher education has to obtain a recognition from the Regional
Committee of NCTE after the appointed date. That authority is
vested only in the Regional Committee as per Section 14 of
the Act. The State Government cannot exercise that power after       F
the appointed date. Nor can the examining body hold
examination of the students of a teacher training institute after
the appointed day unless the institute is recognized by Regional
Committee of the NCTE as laid down in Section 16 of the Act.
These provisions have to be implemented with full force in the       G
interest of the education of the children whom these teachers
will be subsequently teaching, the teacher-candidates
themselves, and for bringing about proper standard and norms
in the field of teachers' education. In the present case the order
granting recognition dated 16.3.2007 was outside the powers          H
    786    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A of the State Government and therefore the Government was
  quite right in rescinding the same by a subsequent order dated
    2.9.2008.
          29. It was contended by the appellant that its students
    should not be made to suffer on account of the delay on the
8
    part of the State Government in taking the decisions. We quite
    see the agony of the students who might have joined the
    appellant institute bona fide. We are told that the appellant
    institution is in a backward area and the students are coming
    from economically and socially backward classes of the
C   society. An institution claiming to teach such students should
    conduct itself with all the more responsibility and ought to be
    more careful and diligent. When the NCTE Act came into force
    in 1995, the institution should have applied to the concerned
    authorities diligently within the time stipulated. Having not so
D   applied thereunder, it is the appellant institution which is
    responsible for the situation in which the students have landed.
    From what is narrated earlier, it is seen that even prior to the
    NCTE Act coming into force, inspite of High Court's order dated
    3.11.1990, the appellant did not submit the application for
E   inspection of the institution and the required particulars in the
    prescribed proforma to the State Government until 27.3.1993.
    The students also sought their remedy belatedly in the year
    1998 by filing Writ Petition No. CWJC 517 of 1998 for the
    declaration of the result of the examination of the 1987-1989
F   batch held on 24.1.1991 (conducted pursuant to the order of
    the High Court dated 3.11.1990). By the time this petition was
    filed, the NCTE Act had already come into force on 1.7.1995,
    and hence although the State Government considered the case
    of the appellant in pursuance to the direction dated 28.1.1998
G   in Writ Petition No. CWJC 517 of 1998 and order dated
    13.2.2007 in LPA No. 609/2006 for the period 1987 to 1995,
    it rescinded the same on realizing that it no longer had the
    power to grant the recognition. Thus, it is very clear that the
    appellant and the students were also not diligent ih furthering
H   their cause, for reasons which are not stated. The State
  BHAGWAN BUDHAPRATHMIK TECHNICAL TRAINING                 787
COLLEGE NIRMALI v. STATE OF BIHAR [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
Government alone cannot be blamed for the-fate of the students    A
for its initial inaction.

    30. Even so, in our view the part of the order in CWJC
No.18181 of 2008 imposing cost of Rs. 30,000/- on the
appellant was not called for. The same requires to be deleted.
                                                                  B
     31. In the circumstances, we do not find any error in the
two impugned orders. Accordingly, both the appeals are
dismissed. The order in CWJC No.18181of2008
                                   I
                                                    is however
modified to the extent of deleting the cost of Rs. 30,QOO/-. As
far as the present proceedings are concerned, there will be no    C
order to costs in both these appeals. In view of the dismissal
of both appeals all the interim applications pending therein
stand disposed of.

D.G.                                      Appeals dismissed.