Holding

The regulations, even if directory, require substantial compliance at the time of filing; an application incomplete at the cut‑off date cannot be condoned, and the High Court’s direction to grant recognition was erroneous.

Summary

The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) rejected an application for B.Ed. course recognition filed by a teacher‑education institution for the 2005‑2006 academic year, on the ground that essential documents (registered lease deed and approved building plan) were submitted after the statutory cut‑off date. The institution remedied the deficiencies and obtained a writ from the Uttaranchal High Court directing NCTE to grant recognition, holding that the regulations did not prescribe a time limit. NCTE appealed, contending that the regulations framed under Section 32 of the NCTE Act are binding and that even if they are directory, substantial compliance is required at the time of filing. The Supreme Court held that the regulations, though possibly directory, demand substantial compliance and that an application must be complete when filed; deficiencies cannot be cured after the deadline. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the appeal allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the NCTE Regulations under Section 32 of the NCTE Act are directory or mandatory in nature.
Whether substantial compliance with the regulations suffices when essential documents are furnished after the prescribed cut‑off date.
Whether the High Court erred in directing NCTE to grant recognition despite the institution’s delayed compliance.

Legislation cited

National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993s. 14, s. 32

Subjects

Teacher educationRecognition of institutionsNCTE regulationsDirectory vs mandatory provisionsSubstantial complianceCut‑off dateWrit petitionAdministrative law

Judgment

NA TI ON AL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR. A
v.
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ORS.

MARCH 7, 2006

[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] B

Education/Educational institutions:

National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993-Sections 14 and
32-NCTE (Form of application for recognition, the time limit of submission C
ofapplication, determination of norms and standards for recognition of teacher
education programmes and permission to start new course or training)
Regulations, 2002-Appendix 1-B and 1-C-Recognition for B.Ed. Course for
a particular academic year-Application for grant of recognition by Institution
submitted on the last date-Deficiency found in form on non-furnishing of D
essential documents rectified, however, refusal to accord recognition-Grant
ofrecognition by High Court-Correctness of-Held: Even if the requirements
of the Regulations are directory in nature, substantial compliance thereof was
necessary-It was obligatory on part of the institution to file an application
complete in all respects-A/I the requirements were capable of being complied
with-Thus, High Court erred in granting recognition, as such set aside. E
First respondent-Institution filed an application before the appellant-
National Council for Teacher Education, for grant of recognition for B.Ed.
course for academic year 2005-2006 on being granted 'No Objection
Certificate' from State Government on 24.12.04. Application was received F
in its office on 31.12.04, which was the last date for submission of
application. First respondent-Institution failed to furnish certain essential
documents. Appellant informed the first respondent about the deficiencies
on 27.4.05 which were later rectified. However, the appellant refused to
accord recognition to the first respondent-Institution for the academic year
2005-2006. Respondent filed a writ petition. High Court held that since G
the Regulations did not postulate any time limit for filing an application
for grant of recognition, it issued direction in favour of first respondent.
Hence, the present appeal.

Appellant- National Council for Teacher Education contended that
10~ H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A the High Court erred in holding that the provisions of the said Regulations
are directory in nature; that as the cut-off date is fixed for filing such
application for grant of recognition for each academic year, no application
thereafter could have been entertained nor the first respondent could have
shown any indulgence to supply the essential documents more than six
months after the cut-off date; that as the appellant-Council is required to
B consider many applications for grant of recognition for the course and
the same being applicable to all the institutions situated throughout the
country, the High Court should not have issued the directions in favour
of the first respondent-Institution.

C Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Regulations could be framed by the appellant under Sub-
section (1) of Section 32 read with Section 14 of the National Council for
Teacher Education Act, 1993. The NCTE (Form of application for
recognition, the time limit of submission of application, determination of
D norms and standards for recognition of teacher education programmes
and permission to start new course or training) Regulations, 2002', having
been validly framed by the Council, were required to be complied with.
The Council has a statutory duty to perform. It is an autonomous body.
Its jurisdiction extend to the entire territory of India except the State of
Jammu and Kashmir and as such, it is indisputably required to pro~ess a
E large number of applications received by it from various institutions situate
throughout the country. Six month's time, in view of the statutory scheme,
is necessary for processing the papers, inspection of the institution and to
take a decision on the basis of report submitted pursuant thereto as to
whether the institution in question, having regard to Entry 66 of List II
F of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, has the requisite
infrastructural facilities for imparting education to the teachers. The
infrustructural facilities required to be provided must be commensurate
with the requirements stated in the said form itself. ( 1072-D-H; 1073-D(

1.2. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that even if the provisions
G of the Regulations are directory in nature, substantial compliance thereof
was necessary. It is no ground that such an application could not be filed
by the first respondent before 31.12.04 as it received the NOC issued by
the State Government. Thus, there is absolutely no reason as to why the
delay in filing the application should be condoned only because the
H application has been filed seven days after the receipt of NOC. In view of
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION••. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT J067

the provisions of the Act and the Regulations, it was obligatory on the part A
of the first respondent to file an application, which was complete in all
respects. It does not lie in the mouth of the applicant to state that despite
requirements of law it would not comply with the same. It is not a case
where the requirements were not capable of being complied with.
(1073-A-B-C; 1075-A-B] B
1.3. The first respondent was required to show that it .has a legal
and valid title in respect of the land on which the building in question was
..._ required to be constructed. Reliance placed on Note (1) of Appendix 1-B
to submit that as the appellant was enjoined with a duty to inform the
institution in regard to respective applicants about the deficiencies in the C
application, it cannot be said that the document of title was essential in
nature, is of no importance as the same could be taken recourse to by the
Council before the expiry of the cut-off date, provided the application for
grant of recognition was filed on such a date which could have provided
the Council to scrutinise the same within a reasonable time. It was also
required to furnish the copy of the building plan approved by the D
competent authority. The copy of the registered Deed of Lease was
furnished for the first time by the first respondent on 9.6.2005: Similarly,
complete information as to whether the building plan had been sanctioned
or not was furnished only on the said date, therefore, the judgment of High
Court cannot be sustained. (1073-C-FJ E
Krishnasamy Reddiar Educational Trust v. Member Secretary, National
Council for Teacher Education & Anr., (2005J 4 SCC 89, relied on.

1.3. The submission that the Institutions similarly situated were
recognised cannot be accepted. No such plea was raised before the High F
Court. A document has been filed by way of additional document without
obtaining the leave of this Court. Appellant was not given an opportunity
to respond thereto. In any event, the concept of Article 14 carries a positive
concept. Only because some illegalities had been committed by the Council
in respect of another institution, the same may not by itself be a ground
for perpetrating the illegality. (1074-F-G] G
CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1546 of 2006.
r

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 30.9.2005 of the Uttaranchal
High Court in Writ Petition No. 843/2005 (M/S).
H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) 2 S.C.R.

A Raju Ramachandran, V.K. Rao, Saurabh Suman Sinha, Usman Ali Khan
and Ms. Madhu Sikri for the Appellants.

Uday U. Lalit, H.S. Parihar and Kuldeep Parihar for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.

The first respondent herein is an institution which imparts teachers'
education. The appellant is a statutory body. It was created under the National
Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 ('the Act', for short). The Act was
enacted with a view to achieve a planned and coordinated development of the
C teacher education system throughout the country, regulate and provide
maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for
matters connected therewith. The appellant-Council was constituted in terms '
of Section 3 of the said Act.

Sub-Section 1 of Section 14 of the Act reads as under:
D
"14.(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
Committee concerned ir. such form and in such manner as may be
determined by regulations:
E
Provided that an inst 1tution 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 application for recognition within the said period and until
the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee."
.
F
The Regulations making power by the Council has been provided for
in Section 32 of the Act. The Regulations made in terms thereof were not to
be inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act and generally, to carry out
the provisions thereof. Without prejudice to the generality of the said
G provisions, in particular, in tc:rms of sub-Section (2) of Section 32 the
Regulations may provide for all or any of the matters enumerated therein;
Clause (e) whereof reads as under:

"(e) the form and the manner in which an application for
recognition is to be submitted under sub-section (1) of section 14;"

H Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said power, the Council framed
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION''· COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT [SINHA,J.] j 069

Regulations known as 'The NCTE (Fonn of application for recognition, the A
t!.me limit of submission of application, determination of nonns and standards
for recognition of teacher education programmes and pennission to start new
course or training) Regulations, 2002.'

Appendix 1-B of the said Regulations provides for a list of essential
documents which are required to be annexed with an application for grant of B
recognition including pennission for additional intake, some of which are:

"(ii) "No Objection Certificate" from the State Govt/UT
Administration (in original).
(iii) Copies of valid land documents along with a "Land Title C
Certificate" by a local practising lawyer (As per the format at
Appendix 1-C).
(iv) Copy of Approved Building plan."

Appendix 1-C mentioned in column (iii) of Appendix 1-B prescribes a
proforma in which an advocate is required to give a Title Certificate. D
+ The first respondent herein, in tenns of the provisions of the said Act
and the Regulations framed thereunder, applied for grant of "No Objection
Certificate" (NOC) before the State of Uttaranchal. The NOC was granted on
or about 24th December, 2004. An application thereafter was made by the E
first respondent for grant of recognition for B.Ed. course in respect of the
aca\iemic year 2005-2006 before the appellant, which was admittedly received
in its office on 31st December, 2004. In tenns of the prescribed proforma for
filing such application, the following particulars of 'necessary infrastructure'
were required to be furnished. The particulars of the infrastructures required
to be furnished by the appellant are as under: F
"3. 1 Please indicate if land is available in the name of the Institution,
either on ownership or on long-tenn lease basis. Land is
available in the name of the institution on long-term lease basis.
A copy of lease deed is attached.
3.2 If the course is proposed to be started in a building already G
constructed, following details/documents may be furnished.
(a) approved building plan with the details of area floor/room
wise.
(b) total plinth area H
~·

1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A (c) completion certificate from the local authority.
f
3.3 If a building is yet to be constructed, the following details/
documents should be furnished.
(a) Site plan: Site plan map attached

B (b) approved building plan with details of area floor/room wise:
Map attached.

(c) date of commencement of construction: 8.11.2004"

The appellant, upon scrutiny of the said application, by its letter dated
C 27.4.2005, pointed out to the Principal of the first respondent-Institution that
the following essential documents had not been annexed thereto:

"2. Legally valid land documents the Lease Deed submitted by the
institution is not registered. The institution/society is required to
submit the registered lease deed in favour of society/institution
D for a period of minimwn 30 years.
3. Copy of the building plan approved by the. competent authority.
The building plan submitted by the institute is not approved by
the competent authority."

E In response to the said letter, the first respondent, by its letter dated
9.6.2005 submitted:

( 1) lease deed purported to be in compliance of the said letter dated
27 .4.2005 duly registered with the competent authority; and

(2) copy of the building plan approved by the competent authority.
F
As the appellant, despite receipt of the said letter refused to accord
recognition to the first respondent-Institution for the academic year 2005-
2006, the respondent herein filed a writ petition before the Uttaranchal High
Court praying, inter a/ia, for the following reliefs:
G "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing
the order dated 27 .06.2005 passed by respondent no. I.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or d.irection in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondent no. I and 2 to grant recognition to start B.Ed.
Course for the Session 2005-2006 to the petitioners' institution."
H
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION " COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT [SINHA. J.) j 07J

The learned Single Judge of the High Court, holding that the Regulations A
' made under Section 32 of the Act did not postulate any time limit for filing
an application for grant of recognition, directed:

"The learned counsel for the petitioners stated at bar that counselling
for B.Ed. will start after 15th October, therefore, there is still time to
consider for grant of recognition before the new admission starts for B
the session 2005-06. Since the application of the petitioners has not
been rejected, considering the public interest to be served by the
institution ifthe recognition is granted, it is provided that the Regional
Committee may consider for grant of recognition to the petitioner-
Institution before the session starts, as the deficiencies have already C
been removed after fulfilling the entire formalities as provided under
Sections 14 & 15 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act,
1993."

Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior-counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants would submit that the High Court committed a manifest error D
in arriving at a conclusion that the provisions of the said Regulations are
directory in nature. As the cut-off date is fixed for filing such application for
grant of recognition for each academic year, it was urged that no application
thereafter could have been entertained nor the first respondent could have''
shown any indulgence to supply the essential documents more than six months
after the cut-off date. It was argued that as the appellant-Council is required E
to consider many applications for grant of recognition for the afore-mentioned
course and the same being applicable to all the institutions situated throughout
the country, the High Court should not have issued the directions in favour
of the first respondent-Institution.

Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the F
respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the said Act having been
enacted in terms of Entry 66 in List II of the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution of India, the institutions seeking recognition are required to
spend a huge sum for providing minimum infrastructure and the 'No Objection
Certificates' was granted by the State only when it satisfied itself as regard G
fulfilment of the said requirement in every respect. According to the learned
counsel, it was well nigh impossible for the first respondent to submit an
application in the prescribed form before 3 lst December, 2004 as the NOC
was issued by the State only on 24.12.2004. Drawing our attention to Note
(I) appended to Appendix 1-B, learned counsel urged that as the appellant
H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A was enjoined with a duty to inform the institution in regard to respective
applicants about the deficiencies in the application, it cannot be said that the
document of title was essential in nature. It was submitted that the first
respondent has substantially complied with the requirements oflaw as lawyer's
certificate, as prescribed in Appendix 1-C had been annexed with the first
B application. Mr. Lalit furthermore su Jmitted that a copy of the building plan
could not have been treated to be an essential document as the building in
question is not situate within an urban area and the same falls within the
jurisdiction of a Panchayat and thus, no sanction of the building plan was
required in respect whereof the necessary certificate has already been filed.
Institutions similarly situated, it was also argued, having been granted
C recognition, there is no reason as to why the impugned judgment could not
be given effect to, argued the learned counsel.

Before adverting to the rival contentions as noticed hereinbefore, we
may place on record that Mr. Lal it did not support the judgment of the High
Court as regard the reasons assigned therein.
D
Regulations could be framed by the appellant under Sub-section ( 1) of
Section 32 read with Section 14 thereof. Section 14, as noticed hereinbefore,
itself provides that the applications are required to be filed in such form and
in such a manner as was determined by the Regulations. The Regulations
could have thus also been framed in terms of Sub-section ( 1) of Section 14
E of the Act. We have, however, noticed hereinbefore that Clause (e) of Sub-
section (2) of Section 32 specifically refers to Section 14 of the Act for the
purpose of laying down the form and manner in which the applications for
recognition are required to be submitted. The High Court was, therefore,
entirely wrong in arriving at the conclusion that the Council had no such
F power. The Regulations, having been validly framed, indisputably, were
required to be complied with. The: Council has a statutory duty to perform.
It is an autonomous body. Its jurisdiction extend to the entire territory of
India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and in that view of the matter,
it is indisputably required to proc1:ss a large number of applications received
by it from various institutions sii:uate throughout the country. Six month's
G time, in view of the statutory scheme, is necessary for processing the papers,
inspection of the institution and to take a decision on the basis of report
submitted pursuant there'to as to whether the institution in question, having
regard to Entry 66 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of ...
India, has the requisite infrastructural facilities for imparting education to the
H teachers.
•
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION"- COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT [SINHA.J.) j 073

For the afore-mentioned purpose, it is not necessary for us to determine A
the question as to whether the provisions of the Regulations are imperative
in character or not. There cannot, however, be any doubt or dispute that even
if they are directory in nature, substantial compliance thereof was necessary.
It is no ground that such an application could not be filed by the first
respondent before 31st December, 2004 as it received the NOC issued by the B
State Government. In view of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations,
it was obligatory on the part of the first respondent to file an application,
which was complete in all respects. It does not lie in the mouth of the
applicant to state that despite requirements of law it would not comply with
the same. It is not a case where the requirements were not capable of being
complied with. The first respondent was required to show that it has a legal C
and valid title in respect of the land on which the building in question was
required to be constructed. It was also required to furnish the copy of the
building plan approved by the competent authority. We have noticed
hereinbefore that the application form itself provides for as to what
infrustructural ·facilities are necessary for running the institution. The D
infrustructural facilities required to be provided must be commensurate with
-1 the requirements stated in the said form itself. One of them is to state the
number of different rooms and their respective sizes thereof available in the
proposed institution. So far as the title over the land in question is concerned,
it was stated by the respondent that the land is available in the name of E
institution on a long-term basis. It is not disputed that copy of the registered
Deed of Lease was furnished for the first time by the first respondent on
9.6.2005. Similarly, complete information as to whether the building plan
had been sanctioned or not was furnished only on the said date. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
F
We may notice that a Division Bench of this Court in Krishnasamy
Reddiar Educational Trust v. Member Secretary, National Council for Teacher
Education & Anr., reported in [2005] 4 SCC 89, opined that :

"It was submitted that in the present matters, all the appellants
were applying for the first time and as such they were required to G
follow the Regulations in force, operative and applicable to fresh
applications. In such cases, Notes (I) and (2) of Appendix 1-8 (list
of essential documents) will apply. Notes (I) and (2) read thus:
"(I) If the application is found incomplete i.e. with all the essential
documents, the institution may be asked to make good deficiencies H
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 2 S.C.R.

A in the application on 01· before the last date prescribed in the
Regulations. f
(2) In the event whe:n defici1:ncies in an application get removed only
after the last date, the application of the institution shall be carried
forward by the Regional Committee for consideration for the
B subsequent academic year i.e. for the course that would be offered
one year later."

In our view, the respondents are right in submitting that there was
delay on the part of the app1~llants. In all the three cases, applications
were submitted without NOC from the State Government. It has come
c on record that NOC was applied for belatedly. The State Government
could not be blamed for not taking a decision on the applications of
the appellants as under Rt:gulation 6 as amended in 2003, it was
required to dispose of such applications within six months of the last
date of receipt of applications. Even prior to the amended Regulation
D 6, it was expected to take decision within "reasonable time" (four
months) as held in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute. As the
appellants applied for NOC in the last week of October 2003, they
cannot make complaint that the State Government delayed the matter.
Admittedly, NOCs were sJbmitted to the respondent after the last
date of application. lfin the above facts and circumstances, recognition
E has been granted by the respondent on 28-10-2004 by imposing a
condition that it would be operative from academic year 2005-2006,
it cannot be said that the respondent had acted illegally, arbitrarily or
otherwise unreasonably."

F Submission of Mr. Lalit that the Institutions similarly situated were
recognised cannot be accepted for more than one reason. No such plea was
raised before the High Court. Before us a document has been filed by way
of additional document without obtaining the leave of this Court. The appellant
had not, thus, been given an opportunity to respond thereto. In any event. the
concept of Article 14 carries a positive concept. Only because some illegalities
G had been committed by th1~ Counc I in respect of another institution, the same
may not by itself be a ground for perpetrating the illegality.

Reliance placed on Note(\) of Appendix 1-B by Mr. Lalit is again of
no importance as the same could be taken recourse to by the Council before '
. H the expiry of the cut-off date, provided the application for grant of recognition
was filed on such a date which could have provided the .Council to scrutinise
"
75
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT (SINHA, J.) ] Q

the same within a reasonable time. A grant of NOC by the State is a condition A
precedent for filing such an application as was observed in Krishnasamy
Reddiar Educational Trust (supra). There is, thus, absolutely no reason as to
why the delay in filing the application should be condoned only because the
application has been filed seven days after the receipt of the NOC.

Before parting with this case, we may place on record that 1t 1s B
categorically stated before us by Mr. Raju Ramachandran that the Council
carried forward the application of the Institution for consideration of the
subsequent academic year. An inspection has already been carried out and
the eligibility of the first respondent to obtain such recognition shall be
detennined within a period of eight weeks from date. We place on record the C
afore-mentioned submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment is set aside. The
appeal is allowed.
D
No costs.

N.J. Appeal allowed.

-