CHAIRMAN, BHARTIA EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR.versusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

                    [2011] 2 S.C.R. 461


  CHAIRMAN, BHARTIA EDUCATION SOCIE_TY & ANR.                 A
                             v.
        STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
            (Civil Appeal No. 1227 of 2011)
                   FEBRUARY 02, 2011
                                                               B
     [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

   . Education/Educational Institutions:

    National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1933:         c
      s. 14 - Recognition of Institutions offering course or
training in teacher education - Teacher Training Institute run
by appellant society - Recognition of Institute by National
Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) for conducting two
year Junior Basic Training (JBT) from the academic session D
2000 - 2001 - Grant of affiliation to the lns(itute for the JBT
course (2001-2003) by State Board of School Education -
Admission of 160 students to the two year JBT course in year ·
1999 - Grant of one-time relaxation in respect of students
admitted by the Institute for the academic session 1999 - 2001 E
and direction to the Board to conduct examination - 68
students found eligible out of 160 and permitted to take
examination and their result was announced - Remaining 92
students were found ineligible but were permitte(i to take the
first year examination - However, their results were not F
announced· nor were permitted to take 'second year
examination - Writ Petition by the 92 students seeking
direction to the Board to decfare their first year results and
conduct the second year examination - Di~missed by the
High Court - On appeal, held: Practice of admitting students G
by unrecognized institutions and then seeking permission for
the students to appear for the examinations cannot be
accepted .- Having regard to the plovisions o~ the NCTE Act,
bef9._re NCTE granted recognition on 17. 7.20<)0, the Institute
                                461                             H
                                                      i
     462     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A could not offer the JBT course nor admit any students to such
  course - Tfiere was no recognition in the year 1999 -
  Therefore, the admissions made by the Institute in the year
  1999 for the academic session 1999-2001 are illegal and
  irregular and could not be approved, recognised or ·
B regularised - The fact that the admissions of 68 students of
  1999-2001 batch had been regularized cannot be a ground
  to perpetuate an illegality by requiring the Board to conduct
  the examinations for the remaining 92 students admitted in
  the year 1999 or declare their results - Thus, order of the High
c Court does not call for interference.
          N. M. Nageshwaramma vs. State of AP (1986) Supp.
     SCC 166; A.P. Christian Medical Education Society vs.
     Government of AP (1986) 2 SCC 667; State of Maharashtra
     vs. Vikas Sahelrao Roundale (1992) 4 SCC 435 - relied on . .
D
           State of Tamil Nadu vs. St. Joseph Teachers Training
     Institute (1991) 3 SCC 87 - referred to.

          s. 14(6) - Grant of affiliation to the Institution, where
 E   recognition has been granted - Recognition of Institute for
     conducting two years Junior Basic Training (JBT) course in
     the year 2000 - Grant of affiliation to the Institute for the JBT
     course (2001-2003), however, affiliation for subsequent JBT
     course not granted - Affiliation granted to the institute only
     for the year 2009 - Admission of student to the JBT course
F    in the year 2002 and 2003 - Writ petitions seeking a direction
     to the Board to conduct the examinations for the academic
     session 2002-2004, and to grant affiliation to the Institute and
     permit students of 2003-2005 batch to appear for examination
     respectively - Disposed of, by the High Court - Direction
·G
r    issued to refund the fees paid by the students and pay Rs
     50, 0001- as damages - On appeal, held: An institution
     requires the recognition of NCTE as well as affiliation with the
     examining body, before it can offer a course or training in
     teacher education or admit students-to such course or training
 H   - Sub-section (6) of Section 14 mandates evety examining
                                                          '
   CHAIRMAN, BHARTIA EDUCATION SOC. v. STATE 463
             OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
  body to grant affiliation to the institution on receipt of the orqer A
  of NCTE granting recognition to such institution - Recognifion
  is a condition precedent for affiliation - Further, sub-section
  (6) of section 14 cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to
  make the process bf affiliation, an automatic rubber-stamping
  consequent upon recognition, without any kind of discretion · B
  in the examining body to examine whether the institution
  deserves affiliation or not, independent of the recognition -
· On facts, the Institute apparently proceeded under the
  mistaken impression that the recognition by NCTE on
   17. 7. 2000, which was granted after the State Government         c
  issued a NOC, resulted in automatic affiliation with the
  examining body - ·The Board had granted affiliation to the
  Institute for an earlier period and also granted affiliations for .
  the subsequent period - The students admitted in 2002 and
  2003 have already completed the course and have also been D
  permitted by the Board - In the interest of justice, the
  admissions of students to the Institute in the years 2002 and ·
  2003 should be regularized subject to fulfilling the eligibility
  criteria prescribed by the Board and their results should be
  declared - Direction of the High Court to pay damages of Rs ·
  50, 0001- to students admitted in 2002 and 2003, set aside.          E
       'Recognition' and affiliation' - Purpose of - Held: Are
 different - 'Affiliation' enables and permits an institution to
 send its students to participate in the public examinations
 conducted by the Examining Body and secure qualification             F
 in the nature of degrees, diplomas, certificates - 'Recognition'
 is licence to the institution to offer a course or training in
 teacher education.

  , . s. 14(6) - Grant of affiliation to the institution, where G
 recognition has been granted - Recognition of institute_ for
 conducting two years Junior Basic Training (JBT) course in
 the year 2000 - Affiliation to the institute for .two years JBT
 course (2001-2003), however, affiliation for subsequent JBT
 course not granted - Affiliation to the Institute granted only H
     464      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A for the year 2009 - Writ petition seeking affiliation to the
   Institute for academic session 2004-2006 and 2005-2007 and
   direction to the Government to sponsor students for
   admission for the said academic session - Dismissed by the
   High Court - On appeal held: No candidates were allotted by
 B the State Government to the Institute, nor did the Institute
   independently admit any candidate for the academic sessions
   2004-2006 and 2005-2007 - The prayer seeking a direction
   to the Board to allot candidates for 2004-2006 and 2005-2007
   does not survive - The question of granting affiliation for those
 c years is academic and does not arise for consideration -
   Notifications related to constitution of a committee to examine
   whether the Institute had committed any irregularities in
   making admissio(ls in the past before the recognition by
   NCTE, not erroneous - After recognition by NCTE and
   affiliation with the Board in 2009, the issue is academic ...:..
 0
   Thus, the appeals are dismissed as having become
   infructuous.

                          Case Law Reference:
           (1991) 3 sec 87         Referred to           Para 10
 E
           (1986) Supp. SCC 166 Relied on                Para 11
           (1986) 2 sec ·667       Relied on             Para 11
           (1992) 4 sec 435        Relied on             Para 11
 F
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
     1227 of 2011.
         From the Judgment & Order dated 03.09.2002 of the High
~ .G Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in C.W.P. No. 622 of 2004 .

                                  . WITH

     C.A. Nos. 1228, 1229, 1230-1231 & 1232-1233 of 2011.

 H
             '
   ·CHAIRMAN, BHARTIA EDUCATION SOC. v. STATE                      465
       .     . OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
· · · · · P.S. Patwalia, Kiran Suri, Aparna Matteo, S.J. Amith, Vijay      A
    Varma, Vinod Sharma, lrshad Ahmad for the Appellants .

      . Naresh K. Sharma, Kirti Renu Mishra, Rishi Jain, Balraj
  Dewan, Vikas Mahajan, Vishal Mahajan, E.C, Vidya Sagar,
  Tulika Prakash for the Respondents.                                      B

       The order qf .the Court was delivered by

       R.V.RAVEENDRAN J., 1. Leave granted. Heard.
        2. Bhartia Education Society ('Society' for short) runs an         c
  institute known as Rameshwari Teachers Training Institute
  ('Institute' for short) at Gandhi Nagar, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.
  The Institute was recognized by National Council for Teacher
  Education (for short, 'NCTE') by order dated 17.7.2000 for
  conducting Two-year Junior Basic Training (JBT) course with              D
  an intake of 50, from the academic session 2000-2001. NCTE
  increased the intake to 100 from the academic session 2002-
  2004. After getting recognition, the Institute applied.for affiliation
  to the Examining Body- Himachal Pradesh Board.'of School
  Education ('Board' for short) on 31.8.2001. The Board granted            E
  affiliation to the Institute for the two-year JBT course (2001-
  2003) by two orders that is order dated 31.12.2001 for the first
  year of the two-year course (2001-2002) and order dated
  27.12.2002 for the second year of the two-year course (2002-
  2003). The Board however did not grant affiliation for the
  subsequent JBT courses and in fact refused affiliation by order          F
  dated 20.1.2004. Ultimately it is stated that affiliation to the
  Institute was granted by the Board only in the year 2009. The
  State Government by letter dated 17.10.2002, however granted
  one time relaxation in regard to studen*s admitted by the
                 1
  Institute for the academic sessions 1999-2001and2000-2002                G
  and directed the Board to conduct the examination for those
  students. In compliance thereof the Board permitted the eligible
  students of 1999-2001 and 2000-2002 batches to take the
  examination in December 2002 ..
                                                                           H
    466     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A       3. The students admitted by the Institute to the two-year
  JBT Course in the year 1999 filed CWP Nos.819 of 2003,
  1178, 1188, 1194, 1204 of 2004 and 50 of 2005, before the
   High Court praying for a direction to the Board to declare the
  first year JBT course results of 1999-2001 batch and a further
B direction to the Board to hold the second year examinations
  for the students belonging to the 1999-2001 batch. A student
  admitted by the Institute to the JBT course in the year 2002 filed
  CWP No.622 of 2004 seeking a direction to the Board to
  conduct the examinations for the students admitted for the
c academic session 2002-2004. The High Court, by its common
  judgment dated 13.1.2006, rejected the prayers in the said
  petitions relating to 1999-2001 and 2002-2004 batches but
  however a different relief to the students who had filed the writ
  Petitions by directing the Society and the Institute to refund the
  fee paid by them and also pay each of them Rs.50,000/- as
0
  damages.

       4. CWP Nos.170 of 2005 and 1231 of 2005 were filed by
  some of the students admitted by the Institute in the year 2003,
  seeking a direction to the Board to take steps to grant affiliation
E to the Institute and permit the students of 2003-2005 batch to
  appear for the examinations. CWP Nos.251 and 252 of 2005
  were filed by the Society/Institute seeking a direction to the
  Board to grant an affiliation for the academic sessions 2004-
  2006 and 2005-2007 and a direction to the Government to
F sponsor students for admission for the said 2004-2006 and
  2005-2007 academic sessions. These four writ petitions were
• disposed of by another common judgment dated 12.7.2007.
  CWP Nos.251 and 252 of 2005 filed by the Society/Institute
  were dismissed. CWP Nos.170 and 1231 of 2005 filed by the
G students of 2003-2005 batch were disposed of by directing the
  Society and the Institute to refund the fees received from those
  students and pay Rs.50,000/- as damages to each of them.

      5. CA Nos.1227/2011 is filed by the Society/Institute
H against the judgment dated 13.1.2006 in CWP No.622/2004
  CHAIRMAN, BHART1A EDUCATION SOC. v. STATE                     467
  OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [R.V. RAVEENDRAN J.]
 relating to 2002-2004 batch. 'CA No.1228/2011 is filed by the          A
 society/Institute and CA No.1229/2011 is filed by the students
 admitted in 1999, against the judgment dated 13.1.2006 in
 CWP No.819/2003, 1178, 1188, 1194, 1204 of 2004 and 50/
 2005, relating to the 1999-2001 batch. CA Nos.1230-1231/
 2011 are filed by the Society/Institute against the judgment           B
 dated 12.7.2007 in CWP No.170/2005 and 1231/2005 relating
 to 2003-2005 batch. CA Nos. 1232-1233/2011 are filed by the
 society/fnstitute against the judgment dated 12.7.2007 in CWP
 Nos.251 and 252 of 2005 relating to academic sessions 2004-
 2006 and 2005-2007.                                                    c
 CA Nos.1228 & 1229 of 2011 (Admissions made in 1999)

        6. The Institute admitted 160 students to the two-year JBT
  course, in the year 1999. The state government by letter dated
  17.10.2002 addressed to the Board, communicated its                   D
  decision to grant one-time relaxation in respect of admission
  of students made .by the Institute for the academic session
  1999-2001 and directed the Board to conduct the examination
  for them. In pursuance of such one-time relaxation by the State
  Government, the Board considered the eligibility of the 160           E
  students admitted for the 1999-2001 academic session and
  found 68 students to be eligible and permitted them to take
  examination and announced their results. The Board found that
  the remaining 92 students were ineligible (either because they
  had not passed the matriculation examination in second                F
  division or did not fallwithin the prescribed age limit). The Board
  however permitted those 92 candidates also to take the first
  year examination, but their results were not announced nor were
  they permitted to take the second year examination. Learned
  counsel appearing for the students contended that there was           G
  some confusion in regard to the eligibility criteria/norms
  adopted by the state government and the Board, and benefit
  of the doubt/confusion should be extended to the students who
  did not possess the required second division in the
· matriculation or were beyond the age limits prescribed. They          H
    468      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A therefore sought a direction to the Board to declare the first year
  results and conduct the second year examination, for the 1999-
  2001 batch students.
        7. It is well settled that admission to a course can be given
B only to those candidates who are eligible as per the regulations
  of the Examining. Body and the· State Government. Therefore,
  unless the students fulfilled the eligibility requirements stipulated
  by the Board which is the affiliating and examining authority,
  their admissions will be invalid and they cannot be permitted
  to take the examination. As the Board found that 92 students
  did not fulfil the eligibility requirements, it rightly rejected the1'r
  admission to the course. But more important than the non-
  fulfilment of the eligibility requirements of the Board, is the
  absence of NCTE recognition in the year 1999. As noticed
  above recognition was granted by NCTE to the Institute only
D on 17.7.2000, from the academic session 2000-2002. The
  question therefore is whether the admissions made in 1999,
  before recognition by NCTE, are valid.

       8. The Society/Institute submitted that they applied to
E NCTE on 11.4.1997, seeking recognition; that NCTE
  responded by stating that it will consider the request for
  recognition, on the Institute obtaining an NOC from the State
  Government; that the State Government gave its NOC on
  20.9.1999; and that therefore, they proceeded bona fide under
F the impression that the Institute could make the admissions from
  1999 onwards. The Society/Institute therefore submitted that the
  admissions made in the year 1999 should be deemed to have
  been regularized, when the Institute was recognized on
  17.7.2000.
G      9. Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher
  Education Act, 1993 ('NCTE Act' for short) relates to
  recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher
  education. Sub-section (1) thereof provides that every institution
  offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher
H education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of
~.. . CHAIRMAN, BHARTIA EDUCATION SOC. v. STATE 469
    OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [R.V. RAVEENDRAN J.]

  recognition under the Act, make an application to the Regional      A
  Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may
  be determined by regulations. NCTE Act came into force on
  1. 7.1995 and the appointed day under the said Act is stated
  to be 17.8.1995. A combined reading of sections 14(1) and
  (5), 15, 16, and 17(3) and {4) of NCTE Act make it clear that       B
  after the appointed day, no institution can commence or offer
  a course or training in teacher education without racognition by
  the NCTE and consequently, no student could be admitted to
  such course or training nor could be permitted to appear in any
  examination relating to such course or training. The. Society       c
  established and started the Institute after the appointed day.
  The Society applied to NCTE for recognition on 11.4.1997.
  NCTE required the Society to obtain and furnish an NOC from
  the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The said NOC was
  granted on 20.9.1999. In pursuance of it, NCTE granted              D
  recognition to the Institute on 17.7.2000. The order of NCTE
  made it clear that the recognition WF!S for conducting the Two
  Years JBT course commencing from the academic year 2000-
  2001 with an annual intake of 50 students. Having regard to
  the clear provisions of the NCTE Act, before NCTE granted
  recognition en 17.7.2000, the Institute could not offer the JBT     E
  course nor admit any students to such course. Therefore, the
  admissions made by the lnstitute in the year 1999 for the
                                       1




  academic session 1999-2001 are illegal and irregular and
  could not be c.ipproved, recognised or regularised.
                                                                      F
        10. The students poii~!~d out that the State Government and
   the Board have accepted and regularized the admissions of
   68 students of 1999-2001 batch and therefore they should not
   be denied similar benefit The fact that the State Government
   and the Board chose to ignore the absence of NCTE                  G
 · recognition and permitted the students admitted in 1999 to take
   the examination or announced the results of 68 students who
   were eligible as per the criteria prescribed by the State/Board,
   cannot be a ground for us to ignore the mandatory statutory
   requirements c;>f NCTE Act and perpetuate an illegality by         H
    470 ·   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2011] 2 S.C.R.

A requiring the Board to conduct the examinations for the
  remaining 92 students admitted in the year 1999 or declare
  their results. In State of Tamil Nadu vs. St. Joseph Teachers
  Training Institute - (1991) 3 SCC 87, this Court disapproved
  the grant of any direction to permit the students of an
B unrecognized teachers training institute to take the examination,
  even in pre-NCTE era. This Court observed :

         "There is no dispute that the respondent educational
         institutions were established for imparting education in
        Teachers Training Course without obtaining recognition
c        from the Education Department of the State Government.
         In the absence of recognition from the Education
       . Department, the students pursuing their studies in these
         institutions could not appear at the public examination held
         by the Education Department. The Full Bench rightly held
D       that students of unrecognized educational institutions could
         not be permitted to appear at the public examination held
         by the government. On its own findings, the Full Bench
         should have refused relief to the petitioners, but it was
         persuaded to issue directions on humanitarian grounds
E        which were in effect destructive of its own findings, and the
         law laid down by it. The Full Bench issued directions
         permitting the students to appear at the examination and
         directing the appellant authorities to make a special
         provision for supplementary examination. These directions
F        in our opinion were unauthorized and wholly unjustified.
         .............. Courts cannot grant relief to a party on
         humanitarian grounds contrary to law. Since the students
         of unrecognized institutions were legally not entitled to
         appear at the examination held by the Education
G        Department of the government, the High Court acted in
         violation of law in granting permission to such students for
         appearing at the public examination."

        11. The practice of admitting students by unrecognized
H institutions and then seeking permission for the students to
   CHAIRMAN, BHARTIA EDUCATION SOC. v. STATE                     471
   OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [R.V. RAVEENDRAN J.]
  appear for the examinations have been repeatedly                       A
  disapproved by this Court [See : N. M. Nageshwaramma vs.
  State of AP- (1986) Supp. SCC 166, A.P. Christian Medical
  Education Society vs. Government of AP - (1986) 2 SCC
, 667, and State of Maharashtra vs. Vikas Sahelrao Roundale
  - (1992) 4 sec 435). We, therefore, find no reason to interfere        B
  with the decision of the High Court rejecting the prayer of the
  students admitted in 1999 to regularize their admissions by
  directing the Board to permit them to appear for the JBT
  examination conducted by it. The two appeals (CA Nos.1228
  and 1229 of 2011) filed by the Society/Institute and the students      c
  in regard to the 1999 admissions are therefore liable to be
  dismissed.

 CA Nos.1227 and 1230-1231 of 2011 (Admissions made in
 2002 and 2003)
                                                                         D
       12. When the Institute made admissions to JBT course in
 the years 2002 and 2003 (for 2002-2004 and 2003-2005
 academic sessions), the Institute had the recognition from NCTE
 vide order dated 17.7.2000. The admissions made by the
 Institute were within the permitted intake. The students admitted       E
 during 2002 and 2003 have completed the course. The
 students were also permitted by the Board to take the
 examination and only their results remain to be declared.

         13. After securing recognition from NCTE on 17.7.2000,
  the Institute applied to !!'A Board for affiliation for the academic   F
  session 2000-2002. The Board informed the Institute, by letter
  dated 31.8.2001 that it did not have jurisdiction to grant
  affiliation to JBT training institutions. However, by subsequent
  order dated 31.12.2001, the Board granted affiliation for the
' two year JBT course for the year 2001-2002 only, with a                G
  condition that the institution shall have to seek fresh affiliation
  for the second year of the course. The State Government by
  letters dated 20.1.2004 and 8.3.2004 rejected the request of
  the Society to regularize the admi~~ons of the 2002-2004
  batch and conduct examination for them-:On the ground that the         H
    472      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011) 2 S.C.R.


A Institute had made admissions by ignoring the admission
  procedures prescribed by the State Government. By letter
  dated 30.10.2004, the State Government instructed the Board
  not to grant affiliation to the Institute because of frequent
  irregularities in admissions. The High Court refused relief to the
B students admitted to 2002-2004 and 2003-2005 sessions on
  the ground that the admission of students by the Institute without
  affiliation to the Examining Body, was illegal and invalid.

         14. Learned counsel for the Institute submitted that having
  regard to the provisions of section 14(6) of the NCTE Act, the
C examining boi;iy::ls. bound to grant affiliation to an institution in
  regard to which }~~ognition has been· granted by NCTE. He
  submitted that where an institution ·is granted· recognition by
  NCTE, the affifiation with the examining· body should
  automatically follow and in view of such deemed affiliation, the
D Examining Body had no discretion to deny affiliation. He
  submitted that when NCTE granted recognition on 17.7.2000,
  the institute bona fide proceeded on the assumption that the
  affiliation with the Examining Body was automatic and therefore
  it had proceeded to make admissions without awaiting any
E specific order of affiliation.
        15. The purpose of 'recognition' and 'affiliation' are
  different. In the context of NCTE Act, 'affiliation' enables and
  permits an institution to send its students to participate in the
F public examinations conducted by the Examining Body and
  secure the qualification in the nature of degrees, diplomas,
  certificates. On the other hand, 'recognition' is the licence to
  the institution to offer a course or training in teacher education.
  Prior to NCTE Act, in the absence of an apex body to plan and
  co-ordinate development of teacher education system,
G respective regulation and proper maintenance of the norms
  and standards in the teacher education system, including grant
  of 'recognition' were largely exercised by the State Government
  and Universities/Boards. After the enactment of NCTE Act, the
  functions of NCTE as 'recognising authority' and the Examining
H
     CHAIRMAN, BHARTIA EDUCATION SOC. v. STATE                   473
     OF ,HIMACHAL PRADESH [R.V. RAVEENDRAN J.]

    Bodies as 'affiliating authorities' became crystallized, though     A
    their functions overlap on several issues. NCTE Act recognizes
    the role of examining bodies in their sphere of activity.

          16. Section 14 of the NCTE Act requires recognition of the
    institution by the NCTE, before the institute could offer any       B
    course or training in teacher education. Sub-section (4) of
    Section 14 provides that every order granting or refusing
    recognition to an Institution for a course or training in teacher
    education under sub-section (3) shall be published in the
    Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate        C
    action to such institution and to the concerned examining body,
    the local authority or the State Government and the Central
    Government. Sub-section (6) of section 14 requires every
    Examining Body on receipt of the order under sub-section (4),
    grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been
    granted; or cancel the affiliation of the institution, where        D
    recognition has been refused. Section 16-of NCTE Act provides
    that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
    tirlne being in force, no examining body shall grant affiliation
    whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution, or hold
    examination for a course or training conducted by a recognized      E
    institution, unless the institution concerned has obtained
    recognition from the Regional Committee of NCTE under
    section 14 or permission for a course or training under section
    15 of the Act.
                                                                        F
          17. Sub-section (6) of section 14 no doubt mandates every
    examining body to grant affiliation to the institution on receipt
    of the order of NCTE granting recognition to such institution.
    This only means that recognition-is a condition precedent for
~   affiliation and that the examining body does not have any           G
    discretion to refuse affiliation with reference to any of the
    factors which have been considered by the NCTE while granting
    recognition. For example, NCTE is required to satisfy itself
    about the adequate financial resources, accommodation,
    library, qualified staff, and laboratory required for proper        H
    474      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A functioning of an institution for a course or training in teacher
  education. Therefore, when recognition is granted by NCTE, it
  is implied that NCTE has satisfied itself on those aspects.
  Consequently, the examining body may not refuse affiliation on
  the ground that the institution does not have adequate financial
B resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, or laboratory
  required for proper functioning of the institution. But this does
  not mean that the examining body cannot require compliance
  with its own requirements in regard to eligibility of candidates
  for admissions to courses or manner of admission of students
c or other areas falling within the sphere of the State government
  and/or the examining body. Even the order of recognition dated
  17.7.2000 issued by NCTE specifically contemplates the need
  for the institution to comply with and fulfil the requirement of the
  affiliating body and state government, in addition to the
  conditions of NCTE. We extract below conditions 4, 5 & 6 of
0
  the order of recognition issued by NCTE in this behalf :

          "4. The admission to the approved course shall be given
          only to those candidates who are eligible as per the
          regulations governing the course and in the manner laid -
E         down by the affiliating University/State Government.

          5. Tuition fee and other fees will be charged from the
          students as per the norms of the affiliating University/State
          Government till such time NCTE regulations in respect of
F         fee structure come into force.

          6. Curriculum transaction, including practical work/
          activities, should be organizsd as per the NCTE norms and
          standards for the course and the requirements of the
          affiliating University/Examining body."
G
  The examining body can therefore impose its own requirements
  in regard to eligibility of students for admission to a course in
  addition to those prescribed by NCTE. The state government
  and the examining body may also regulate the manner of
H admissions. As a consequence, if there is any irregularity in
 CHAIRMAN, BHARTIA EDUCATION SOC. v. STATE                       475
 OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [R.V. RAVEENDRAN J.]
admissions or violation of the eligibility criteria prescribed by        A
the examining body or any irregularity with reference to any of
the matters regulated and governed by the examining body, the
examining body may cancel the affiliation irrespective of the fact
that the institution continues to enjoy the recognition of the
NCTE. Sub-section (6) of section 14 cannot be interpreted in             B
a manner so as to make the process of affiliation, an automatic
rubber-stamping consequent upon recognition, without any kind
of discretion in the examining body to examine whether the
institution deserves affiliation or not, independent of the
recognition. An institution requires the recognition of NCTE as          c
well as affiliation with the examining body, before it can offer a
course or training in teacher education or admit students to
such course or training. Be that as it may.

      18. Certain facts peculiar to this case requires to be
noticed. The Institute apparently prcceeded under the mistaken           D
impression that the recognition by NCTE on 17.7.2000, which
was granted after the State Government issued a NOC,
resulted in automatic affiliation with the examining body. The
 Board had granted affiliation to the Institute for an earlier period
and has also granted affiliations for the subsequent period. The         E
students admitted in 2002 and 2003 have already completed
the course and have also been permitted by the Board which
is the examining and affiliating authority to appear for the
examinations. In the peculiar circumstances, to do complete
justice, we are of the view that the admissions of students to           F
the Institute in the years 2002 and 2003 should be regularized
subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Board
and their results should be declared. To this limited extent, the
appeals relating to 2002 and 2003 admissions succeed. CA
No.1227/2011 and 1230-1231/2011 are disposed of                          G
accordingly.

      19. The High Court has directed that the Society and
Institute having violated the statutory provisions and norms,
should refund the fees taken from all students who were writ
                                                                         H
    476      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2011] 2 S.C.R.


A petitioners and also pay to each of them Rs.50,000/- as
  damages. The said direction of the High Court to pay damages
  of Rs.50,000/- to each student, is set aside insofar as students
  admitted in the years 2002 and 2003.

B Civil Appeal Nos. 1232-1233/2011 (re: 2004-2006 and 2005-
  20.QZl

        20. These appeals arise from the dismissal of the writ
  petitions (WP No.251-252/2005) filed by the society and the
  institute for the following reliefs: (a) for grant of affiliation to the
C Institute for 2004-2006 and 2005-2007; (b) for quashing the
  Notifications dated 20.6.2002 and 25.6.2002; and (c) for a
  direction to the State Government and the Board to sponsor
  students for the academic sessions 2004-2006 and 2005-
  2007.
D
        21. Admittedly no candidates were allotted by the state
  government to the Institute, nor did the Institute independently
  admit any candidate for the academic sessions 2004-2006 and
  2005-2007. As we are in the year 2011, the prayer seeking a
  direction to the Board to allot candidates for 2004-2006 and
E 2005-2007 does not survive. In view of grant of affiliation to the -
  Institute in the year 2009 and in the absence of any students
  being admitted for the academic sessions 2004-2006 and
  2005-2007, the question of granting affiliation for those years
  is academic and does not arise for consideration.
F
        22. The Notifications dated 20.6.2002 and 26.5.2002
  related to constitution of a committee to examine whether the
  Institute had committed any irregularities in making admissions
  in the past before the recognition by NCTE. There was nothing
G erroneous in constitution of such a committee. At all events, after
  recognition by NCTE and affiliation with the Board in 2009, this
  issue is academic. Consequently, CA Nos.1232-1233/2011 are
  liable to be dismissed as having become infructuous.

H
 CHAIRMAN, BHARTIA EDUCATION SOC. v. STATE 477
 OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [R.V. RAVEENDRAN J.J
       Conclusion:                                                           A

       23. We accordingly dispose of the appeals as follows :

        (i)     CA No.1228/2011 and 1229/2011 are dismissed

        (ii)    CA No.1227/2011and1230-1231/2011 are· B
                disposed of in terms of paras 18 and 19 above.

        (iii)   CA Nos.1232-1233/2001 are dismissed as having
                become infructuous.

        (iv)    As the students admitted in 1999 have been                   c
                prosecuting the litigation from 2003, we direct that
                if these students seek fresh 'admission to the
                Institute in 2011, they shall be permitted to join the
                course, if they meet the eligibility criteria, by relaxing
                only the age requirement. As they have paid the              D
                fees for the course in 1999-2001, they shall not be
                charged any further fee by the Institute.
N.J.                                            Appeals disposed of.