HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G.S. SINGHVI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Appeals No.1170, 1431, 1675, 2150, 2381, 2523 and 2561 of 2005, 424 and 425 of 2006 Writ Appeal No.1170 of 2005 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings and another … Appellants And The Mahalakshmi Devi Education Society Represented by its Secretary Sri A. Sridhar Lakshman Devarakonda, Nalgonda District and another. … Respondents Writ Appeal No.1431 of 2005 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings and another … Appellants And Islamic Educational & Cultural Society, Markapur, Prakasam District represented by its President and Correspondent, Mr.Mirza Shamsher Ali Baig and others. … Respondents Writ Appeal No.1675 of 2005 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings and another … Appellants And Vishnu Educational Society represented by Its Secretary and Correspondent, Sri Ch. Raju and another … Respondents Writ Appeal No.2150 of 2005 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings and another … Appellants And Sri Venkateswara Educational & Research Society Represented by its Correspondent, Dr. P. Someswara Rao and another … Respondents Writ Appeal No.2381 of 2005 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings and another … Appellants And Kavitha Memorial Educational Society Represented by its Correspondent/Secretary and another. … Respondents Writ Appeal No.2523 of 2005 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings and another … Appellants And Janke Rami Reddi Memorial Educational Society, Represented by its Secretary/Correspondent, Sri Venna Hanuma Reddy and another. … Respondents Writ Appeal No.2561 of 2005 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department,Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and another … Appellants And Hird Junior College High School, Narasaraopet Represented by its Correspondent. … Respondent Writ Appeal No.424 of 2006 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings and another … Appellants And M/s.Asifia Educational Society and others … Respondents Writ Appeal No.425 of 2006 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings and another … Appellants And Kuppam Educational Society represented By its Chairman, B.C. Naga Raju and another. … Respondents ::JUDGMENT:: Counsel for appellants: Government Pleader for School Education. Counsel for the respondents: Sri T. Anantha Babu, Senior Advocate and Sarvasri A. Veera Swamy, S. Niranjan Reddy, J. Kanakaiah, V. Kishore, Ch.Samson Babu, T. Niranjan Reddy B. Adinarayana Rao April , 2006 Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ These appeals are directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judges in different writ petitions whereby they quashed Memo No.1675/Trg-I/2004 dated 12- 6-2004 issued by the State Government (appellant No.1 herein) and consequential proceedings in Rc.No.2490/N2-2/2004-8 dated 22-6-2004 issued by Commissioner and Director of School Education, Saifabad, Hyderabad (appellant No.2 herein) canceling notification dated 1-12-2003 and directed the appellants to consider the applications filed by the writ petitioners for grant of ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) for establishing B.Ed. colleges. For the sake of convenience, we have noted the facts from Writ Appeal No.1170 of 2005. Respondent No.1 – The Mahalakshmi Devi Education Society is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It established a B.Ed. college for women at Rajahmundry in 1979. In response to notification dated 1-12-2003 issued by appellant No.2 for starting new B.Ed. colleges in seven villages of Chittoor, Prakasam, Warangal, Adilabad, Nalgonda and Nizamabad Districts, respondent No.1 applied for grant of NOC to establish B.Ed. college in the backward area of Devarakonda of Nalgonda District. Along with the application, respondent No.1 deposited the fee prescribed for processing the application and inspection. Respondent No.1 also purchased land measuring Ac.5-00 and deposited Rs.5 lakhs in fixed deposit towards corpus fund. On 23-12-2003, a team of officers of the State Council for Education, Research and Training (SCERT) conducted physical verification of the preparations made by respondent No.1. The officers concerned are said to have felt satisfied that respondent No.1 had made all arrangements necessary for starting B.Ed. college at Devarakonda. The building plan submitted by respondent No.1 was approved by Devarakonda Gram Panchayat on 6-4-2004. Notwithstanding this, the concerned authorities of the Education Department did not issue the required NOC. Therefore, respondent No.1 filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the non-petitioners to issue the required NOC and permission to establish B.Ed. college. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it was averred that failure of the non-petitioners (appellants herein) to issue NOC has resulted in denial of the petitioner’s legitimate right to establish B.Ed. college in the backward area of Nalgonda District. It was further averred that after having induced the writ petitioner to purchase land and take other steps necessary for establishing B.Ed. college, the non-petitioners cannot withhold NOC. During the pendency of the writ petition, appellant No.1 issued Memo dated 12-6-2004 and declared that there was no need to establish new B.Ed. colleges. Thereafter, appellant No.2 issued proceedings dated 22-6-2004 for cancellation of notification dated 1-12-2003. On coming to know of this development, the writ petitioner (respondent No.1) filed additional affidavit dated 5-7-2004 wherein it challenged the legality of Government Memo dated 12-6-2004 and proceedings dated 22-6-2004 issued by appellant No.2. In the counter-affidavit filed by Smt.P.B.T. Sundari, Deputy Director (Training) in the office of non-petitioner No.2 (appellant No.2 herein), it was averred that in response to notification dated 1-12-2003 issued by the department, 46 applications were received for establishing B.Ed. colleges. It was further averred that process for physical verification had been completed, but when criteria evolved by State Level Standing Committee (SLSC) for deciding the competing claims of the applicants was forwarded to the government, it was decided to cancel notification dated 1-12- 2003 and to undertake review of the need for more B.Ed. colleges. Thereafter, an additional affidavit dated 14-4-2005 was filed on behalf of the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) reiterating its prayer for grant of NOC. In reply, an additional counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the non-petitioners. In paragraphs 6 to 11 of that affidavit, it was averred as under: “6. It is submitted that in view of the orders of the Government, a Committee has been constituted to take up a comprehensive review and to assess the need for establishment of Training Colleges under private sector for Primary, Secondary, Physical Education, M.Ed., Pandit Training and Pre-Primary Training Institutions in the State. The Committee has submitted a report after discussing various parameters in assessing the need for additional requirement of School Assistants and Secondary Grade Teachers as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.39, Edn. (Ser.V) Dept., dated 03-05-2002 wherein the teaching staff pattern worked out for schools. Apart from the above, while assessing the need, the following aspects were also taken into consideration: i. The children enrolled in Residential Bridge Courses and non- residential bridge courses, ii. Out of school children, iii. Staffing pattern of Residential Schools, iv. Staffing pattern of ITDA Ashram Schools, v. Growth rate of schools due to migration, population increase in certain specified areas, new colonies coming up etc. The Committee has worked out the staffing pattern, enrolment-range wise of Upper Primary Schools and High Schools, probable growth of institutions and teachers from 2004-05 to 2013-14. The Committee has also taken into consideration the natural attrition rate projecting as 3% and attrition due to promotion, deployment and deputation as 0.5% based on the number of vacancies arisen every year. 7. It is submitted that after taking into consideration all the above aspects, the Committee has assessed the future requirement of teachers from 2004-05 to 2013-2014 approximately as 16,000 teachers and suggested that there is no need for establishment of any more B.Ed. Colleges or D.Ed. Colleges or need for enhancement of intake in the existing B.Ed. Colleges as the existing 304 B.Ed. colleges with an intake of 33,903 will cater to the future requirement of teachers upto 2013-2014. 8. It is respectfully submitted that the report is worked out on scientific lines, taking into account the staffing pattern and growth rate of schools, out of school children and requirement of monitoring system and forwarded the report to the Committee for taking necessary action. 9. It is submitted that after careful examination of the matter, Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.49, Edn., dated 04-03-2005 stating that no permission should be issued for opening of fresh Telugu Medium B.Ed. Colleges and D.Ed. colleges as the existing intake in Telugu Medium B.Ed. colleges will cater to the needs of Teachers in Primary and High Schools and also in view of the large number of Telugu Medium B.Ed. candidates being available in the State. 10. It is respectfully submitted that though the medium of instruction in B.Ed. Colleges is English only, the students are permitted to write the B.Ed. examination either in Telugu, Urdu or Hindi etc. also. The ground reality is that in most of the colleges, the students are opting to write the examination in Telugu only especially more so in the case of students with the rural educational background. As such, the Government have imposed a ban for the establishment of Telugu Medium B.Ed. Colleges i.e., prohibiting the opening of any more B.Ed. colleges where the students are given option of answering the examination in Telugu. 11. It is respectfully submitted that in view of the above position, Government have issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.47 Edn dated 28-2-2005 for setting of exclusive English Medium B.Ed. Colleges in the State @ 2 per district with a view to meeting the growing requirement of providing quality teachers in English Medium and decided to permit the same under private sector, so that the trained candidates will have placement opportunities in the State of Andhra Pradesh, in other States and also in other developing countries and requested the Director of School Education, Director, SCERT, Hyderabad and Secretary, APSCHE, Hyderabad to formulate necessary guidelines for setting up exclusive B.Ed. colleges in English Medium. The guidelines were not yet finalized. Separate guidelines will have to be framed for establishment of English Medium B.Ed. Colleges apart from the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.398 Edn dated 4-12-1997.” On a consideration of the pleadings of the parties and arguments of their counsel, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed Memo dated 12-6- 2004, as also proceedings dated 22-6-2004 and directed National Council for Teacher Education (for short ‘NCTE’) to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of recognition and decide the same keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, NCTE. The learned Single Judge observed that the decision contained in Memo dated 12-6-2004 appears to be politically motivated and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. The writ petitions filed by Islamic Educational and Cultural Society, Markapur, Vishnu Educational Society, Sri Venkateswara Educational and Research Society, Kavitha Memorial Educational Society, Janke Rami Reddi Memorial Educational Society, Hird Junior College High School, Narsaraopet, M/s.Asifia Educational Society and others and Kuppam Educational Society for issuance of direction to the respondents to grant NOC were likewise allowed by the learned Single Judges. The appellants have questioned the orders of the learned Single Judge primarily on the ground that in exercise of the power vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot interfere with the policy decision taken by the State Government to withdraw notification dated 1-12-2003. They have also pleaded that the learned Single Judges committed a grave error by attributing political motives to the decision contained in Memo dated 12-6-2004. According to the appellants, the change of party in power did not have any bearing on the decision which was taken with a view to undertake a comprehensive review of the need to establish new B.Ed. colleges. Before proceeding further, we deem it proper to take notice of some events, which took place before decision of the writ petition filed by the Mahalaxmi Educational Society as also the developments which have taken place after the decision. Pre-decision events: 17-9-2004 Respondent No.1 submitted application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE at Bangalore for grant of recognition for starting B.Ed. college at Devarakonda. A sum of Rs.40,000/- was also deposited as inspection fee. 28-2-2005 The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.47 for opening two B.Ed. colleges of English medium in every district. 4-3-2005 The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.49 and declared that no permission will be granted for opening fresh Telugu medium B.Ed. colleges. 15-3-2005 Respondent No.1 sent remainder to Southern Regional Committee of NCTE for grant of recognition. Post-decision developments: 16-5-2005 Southern Regional Committee of NCTE informed respondent No.1 that team of experts will visit on 21-5-2005 for the purpose of inspection. 21-5-2005 Prof.Vasantha Kumar, Karnataka and Prof. Andrew of Kerala inspected the college of respondent No.1 and facilities. 5-7-2005 The Southern Regional Committee of NCTE granted recognition entitling respondent No.1 to start B.Ed. college from the academic year 2004-05 with an annual intake of 100 students. 9-7-2005 A team constituted by Osmania University visited the college at Devarakonda and submitted report with favourable recommendation for grant of affiliation. 11-7-2005 Osmania University granted provisional affiliation to the new B.Ed. college. 12-7-2005 By an order passed in WPMP No.18902 of 2005 in Writ Petition No.14884 of 2005, this Court directed Convenor, EDCET 2004- 05 to allot students to the college established by respondent No.1. The latter allotted the required number of students and 97 of whom were admitted to the B.Ed. course for 2004-05. 22-9-2005 Osmania University allotted College Code No.102 for B.Ed. course. 18-10-2005 A.P. State Council of Higher Education approved the list of the candidates admitted by the management of the college against 15% quota. 22-10-2005 The Registrar, Osmania University, vide proceeding No.1833/H- B.Ed/04-05/ Acad /IV-2, approved the teaching staff members of the college for the academic year 2004-05. 23-11-2005 Convenor, EDCET 2004, vide proceedings No.3315/A1/Ed.CET/2004 approved the list of candidates admitted for the academic year 2004-05. 19-12-2005 Southern Regional Committee of NCTE, Bangalore granted recognition to the college for the academic year 2005-06. Learned Government Pleader argued that the decision to cancel notification dated 1- 12-2003 was taken because the same was not preceded by an assessment of the need of trained teachers in different disciplines. He submitted that with a view to undertake a comprehensive exercise for determination of the need of trained teachers, the government decided to cancel notification dated 1-12-2003. He further submitted that the State Government has the exclusive prerogative to determine the need for B.Ed. colleges in the particular areas and decision taken in such matters is beyond the pale of challenge. Learned Government Pleader then argued that the decision to cancel notification dated 1-12-2003 was taken because a large number of surplus trained teachers are available in Telugu medium and there was enormous pressure on the government to provide employment to them without any tangible requirement. He submitted that after undertaking comprehensive review of the requirement of trained teachers, the government has decided that there is no need to establish Telugu medium B.Ed. colleges, but there is a dire need of English medium B.Ed. colleges. Therefore, vide G.O.Ms.No.47 dated 28-2-2005, permission has been granted for setting up two exclusive English medium B.Ed. colleges in each district. He then argued that observations made by the learned Single Judge suggesting that the decision contained in Memo dated 12-6-2004 was politically motivated are not supported by the material brought on the record of the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 and, therefore, the same should be set aside. Sri T. Anantha Babu, Senior Advocate and other learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents supported the orders of the learned Single Judges and argued that the direction given by them for consideration of the applications of their clients for establishing B.Ed. colleges do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference. Sri T. Anantha Babu highlighted the fact that The Mahalakshmi Devi Education Society (respondent No.1 in Writ Appeal No.1170 of 2005) has already been granted permission by NCTE to establish B.Ed. college at Devarakonda, Nalgonda District and the college has been functioning for last more than one year and the same stands affiliated with Osmania University. He emphasized that notification dated 1-12-2003 had been issued by the competent authority after assessing the requirement of new B.Ed. colleges in the backward areas of the State and cancellation thereof is vitiated by arbitrariness and mala fides. Learned counsel argued that Memo dated 12-6-2004 was issued without undertaking a fresh review of the need for establishing B.Ed. colleges and, therefore, the inference drawn by the learned Single Judge that the same was politically motivated cannot be faulted. In support of their arguments, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational & Charitable Trust v. State of T.N., Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commr. & Secy. To Govt. Higher Education Department, St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, NCTE (1 supra), Govt. of A.P. v. J.B. Educational Society and of this Court in Self-Financing Rural Engineering College Managements Association v. All India Council for Technical Education. We have thoughtfully considered the entire matter. By virtue of the power vested in it under Entry 66 of List I of the VII Schedule read with Article 246 of the Constitution of India, the Parliament enacted National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Central Act’). Section 2 (c) of that Act defines the term ‘Council’ as the National Council for Teacher Education established under Section 3 (1). Section 2 (i) defines the term ‘recognised institution’ as an institution recognized by the Council under Section 14. Section 2 (l) defines the expression ‘teacher education’ to mean programmes of education, research or training of persons for equipping them to teach at pre-primary, primary, secondary and senior secondary stages in schools, and includes non-formal education, part-time education, adult education and correspondence education. Section 3 empowers the Central Government to establish a Council to be called ‘the National Council for Teacher Education’ (for short ‘the Council’). Section 12 enumerates the functions of the Council. Section 14 provides for recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education. Section 31 empowers the Central Government to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act. Section 32 empowers the Council to make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. For the sake of convenient reference, Sections 12, 14 and 32 (1), (2) (c), (d) (iii), (e) and (p) which have bearing on the decision of these appeals read as under: “12 Functions of the Council – It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education and for the determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education and for the purposes of erforming its functions under this Act, the Council may- a. undertake surveys and studies relating to various aspects of teacher education and publish the result thereof; b. make recommendations to the Central and State Governments, Universities, University Grants Commission and recognised institutions in the matter of preparation of suitable plans and programmes in the field of teacher education; c. co-ordinate and monitor teacher education and its development in the country; d. lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in schools or in recognised institutions; e. lay down norms for any specified category of courses or trainings in teacher education, including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum; f. lay down guidelines for compliance by recognised institutions, for starting new courses or training, and for providing physical and instructional facilities, staffing pattern and staff qualifications; g. lay down standards in respect of examinations leading to teacher education qualifications, criteria for admission to such examinations and schemes of courses of training; h. lay down guidelines regarding tuition fees and other fees chargeable by recognised institutions; i. promote and conduct innovation and research in various areas of teacher education and disseminate the results thereof; j. examine and review periodically the implementation of the norms, guidelines and standards laid down by the Council, and to suitably advise the recognised institutions; k. evolve suitable performance appraisal systems, norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability on recognised institutions; l. formulate schemes for various levels of teacher education and identify recognised institutions and set up new institutions for teacher development programmes; m. take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of teacher education; and n. perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the Central Government. 14 Recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education - 1. Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make art application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations; Provided that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. 2. The fee to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. 3. On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee from any institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall,- a. if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulations; or b. if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfill the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing recognition to such institution for reasons to be recorded in writing; Provider that before passing an order under sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the concerned institution for making a written representation. 4. 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 action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government. 5. Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused, shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3). 6. Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under sub-section (4),- a. grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted b. cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused. 32 Power to make regulations - 1. The Council may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, generally to carry out the provisions of this Act. 2. In particular and