All * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Delivered on: April 20, 2011 + LPA No. 313 Of 2011 I.B. Women College of Education & Management .....Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate. Versus National Council for Teacher Education & Anr. Respondents Through: Mr.Mayank Manish with Mr.Amitesh Kumar, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? YES To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES 3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES DPAK MISRA, CI For orders, see LPA 242/2011. CHIEF JUSTICE APRIL 20, 2011 pk '--5 ")1(-- SANJIV KHANNA, J. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified IN THE HIGH COURT OF DElHI AT NEW DFLffl Judgment Delivered on: April 20 2011 +1. LPA No. 242 Of 2011, Saheed Capt. DJK. .Khola College of Education ..... .Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Sharawa.t, AdVocate. Versus National Council for Teacher Education & Ani. ......Respondents Thiough Mi Mayank Manish wil Li M Amitch IKurnar, Advocates. 2 LPA No. 243 Of 2011 •. Kalparia Chawla College of Education for Women & Ors. . ......Appellants • . Through: Mr.Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate. • Versus • National Council for Teacher Education & Anr. :..: Respondents Thiough Mi Mayank Manish with Mi Aimlesh • . .• . . Kumar, Advocates. 3: • LPA No. 313 Of 2011 • • LB. Women College of Education &.Management ..... .Ape11ant • . Through: Mr.Sanjay.Sharawa;t, Adyocate. Versus . Nadnal Council for Teacher Education & Aur. ....... .Respondents Through: Mr.Mayarik Mnish withMrAntitesh Kumai, Advocates LPA 24212011 with conected matters • . page 1 of 50 4 No; 314 Of 201 IPS SchQol of Management and Education .... Appellant Tlrough: Mr. Sanjay Sharawit, Advocate. Versus National Council for Teachei Education & Am Respoi-iderils Through: Mr.Mayank Manish wi!;h Mr.AmiLesh Kumar,Advocaes. LPA No. 315 Of 2011 IP College of Education Appellant Through Mi Sanjay Shaiawat, Advocate Veisus • Naiona1 Council for Teacher Education & Anr. Respondents Through: Mr.Mayank Maiish with M.r.Amitesh Kumar, AdvOcates. • PA No. 316 Of 2011 . S IFS College of ducaon Research & Technology Appeilat Through: Mr.Sanjay Sharawt, Advocate. S • •• Versus • . • • National Council for Thacher Education & Anr. .....Respobdents Through: Mr.Mayank Manish with Mr.Arnitesh • .• Kumar, Advocates. 7 LPA No 318 Of . 2011 Shanfi Niletn College of Education & Ors. Appellants S • Through: Mr.Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate. • •, • Versus • • • S • • National Council for Teachr Education & Ani. Résondents Through: Mr.Mayank Manish with Mr .Amitesh S Kumar, Advocates. LPA 24212011 with connected matters • page 2 of SO 8. LPA No. 320 Of 2011 Rao Kehär Shgh Elementary Instite of Education & Am Appellant.s Through: Mr.Sanjay Sharawat, Advoc.at.e. Versus National Council for Teacher Education & Am Respondents Through: Mr.Mayartk Manish with Mr.Amitesh IKumar, Advocates. . 9.: LPA No 358 Of 2011 Rao Udmi Ram Memorial ,ollege of Education . . .. Appe11ait Through.: Mr.Raj K. Ruhil and Mr.Vivek 1\4alik, Advocates. Versus • National Codncil for Teacher Education & Anr. .....Respondd.nts Through: Mr.Mayank Manish with Mr.Athitesh * Kumar, Advocates. . 10. LPA No 359 Of 2011 B M P College of Education Appellant. Though Mi Raj K. Ruhil and Mi Vivek Mahk, . Advocates. . .• Versus . National Council for Teacher Education & Anr. Respondents • •. . .. Through: Mr.Mayank Manish with Mr.Amitesh Kumar, Advocates. CORAM: . • . HON'BIJE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANIIVKHANNA 1 Aether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgmeit? YES • . . To be referred to the Reporter or not? • YES • • 3 • Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES LPA 24212011 with connected motters page 3' of 50 Not for nothing it has been said, frainhg is the first foundation of life and bettei than an abstiact concept Tiatning is fundamentally governed by reason *hich is tested on the touchstone of logic and rational acceptubility. It distafces itself from desire, habitual disobedience and unfettered feelings. in a cultured society which is governed by Rule of :Law, the coimnnd of law is an imperative prescription. The coll.edive at large is assured, of what is just and right. It ostacises any reason based on ignorance as 'well as pretence. It does not countenance any allowance to any deviation or artificially contrived path. In a State where the Rule of 'Lawis supreme, it is not expected to have any kind of conflict and hazard which is hostile 'to it. Warren E. Burgern, in one of his addresses, had spoken thus - "Rule of law places restraints on individtials and on goverents alike. This is a delicate, a fragile balance to maintain. It is fragil because it is sustained otily by an ideal that requires each person in sociely, by an exercise of free will, to accept and abide the iestrain±s of:. a structure of laws." . 2 It is apt to note here that sometimes, some individuals. and a t other . times, some institutions, managed . by individuals, scandalise the role atfri.bited to them for imparting education and training. Sometimes, as the factual exposé would uncurtain, the private institutions, which impart training to the students who, in turn, become teachers and teach the students, endeaVour, to create a state of instability in the name 'of Rule of LPA 24212011 with conhected matters page 4 of 50 Law. One may not be very much wrong if it is called inadacy and • starvation of intellect;. One is reminded. of the saying that if one is totally truthfii, he shall always be coura-eous and not labour .hard to take • recourse to the over-stretched concepts and unnecessary labyrinths, of interpretation. . . . I. The . question, a pivotal and a spinal one, that arises for dtern'ination in this batch of aipeals is whether the stand, and stance .ssi.duously pyramided.by the appellants to the extent that the Northern Regional Comiñittee (NCR) constituted. by the Central Council under the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (for brevity 'the Act') is 4f), devoidcof power and authority to carry any inspection after the recognition is .graned under Section 14 of the Act, or whether the submission of the NCTE that the Act was enacted by the Parliament to provide for the establishment of a National Council for Teachers Education: with a view to achieving planned land coordinated development of the teachOrs educa Lion system throughoUt the Countly, the regulation and proper ntain.tenance of noims and standards in teacheis education system and for matteis :• connected therewith, an, therefore, the power of inspection has to be an 'integral part of the schethe of SectiOn 17 of the Act. 4 The pioposition that has been canvassed by the institutions • . , un.damentally is that once the Regional Committee grants .recognitlon, it • , • has no power to do anything relating to inspection as • the powei page 5 of 50 LIM excfusively vests with the National Council for the same and,, Lherefore, any actioi for inspection by the Regiona.i Committee is. [ota.lIv sans th.e authority of law and deserves to be lanc,eted in exerd,s.e of irther0ri jurisdiction of this Court. The proponement of NCTE is that the • . . friterpretation that is placed by the 'institutions exposes a d.i.ftirhing phenomenon that corrbdes the tharrows of the educational institLitlions which, are 'concerned with imparting education to the sucients who, in. turti, become teachers and eventually the system of education is slaughtered or throwh to the abysmal depth so that the term "teaching", as is understood in the 'proper paradigm, would lose importance, for a vicious atmosphere is delibeiately cieated 5. ' The aforesaid confroversy, as we proceed with our deliberations, shall gradually. get unfurled and uncurtained. We may note with profit that regard beirig had to the commonality of issue involved in these appeals, they are dispos.d by a singulai order. For the sake.of clarhy and convenience, the facts in LFA No.242/2011 arising out of order claed 28.2.20,11 passed by the learned Singie'Judge in W..P.(C) No.9703/2009 are exposited'hereiri. The appellant, Saheed Capt. D.K. Khola College of Education, was granted recognition by the National Council for Teacher Educatioti (for 'short '.NCTE')' and its functionaries, for conducting four courses, namely, B Ed, B Ed [Add], D Ed and M Ed, in the year 2007-2008 The lecognilion LPA 24212011 with connected matters ' page 6 of 50 .. ' (9 for each course was granted by the respondents after conducting itispection each. time and after duly verifying the availability of the •requisite infrastructural and instructional facilities. The affiiiatio:n was • granted by the University after due inspection and the appellant iris I fitut ion was ubject to nuilaerous inspections before affiliation was granted. On 4.6.2009, the NCTE conducted inspection of the appellant institution under Section 13 of the Act. Thereafter, the respondent No.2, namely, Northern Regional Committee (for short 'NRC'), desired to conduct inspection of the appellant and constituted an inspection. tea.ri.. When the appellant institition got the information about the inspection, a request was made to defer the date. That apart,.it was also stated that NCTE had already conducted the inspection under Section 13 of the Act. On 4.6.2009, a show cause hotice was issued under Section 17 of the Act • • purporting to withdraw the recognition of the appellant in respect of all courses on the ground that the inspecting team was not allowed to conduct the inspection. Thereafter, the appellant submitted its reply a.ncireuested • • the NRC that it was open 10 inspection any time. Despite the sid request, C the NRC withdrew the recognition of the appellant in respect of all • courses. • 7. Being dissatified with the said order, the appellant preferred the writ petition challenging the power of the Regional Committee to conduct inspection of any recognized institution after recognition is granted. undei the Act. It wa contended before the learned Single Judge that the Regional Connttee does not have the powor under Section 17 of the Act \ry or under any other provision of the Act, Rules and Regulat:ions to conduct an inspection once the recognition is granted by it. It was urged that the Regional Committee is a subordinate body which exercises limited, powers • utider Sections 14, 15 and 17 of the Act being a nodal regulatory body of NCTE and, herige, ouid not have thought of inspecting the institution. The further stad was when there is an express conferment of power on the Council, the tegional coirnittee cannot assume the said power and inspect the instihition for the reasoti that if a statute rquires .i particular thin.g to be done in a particular maniner, the same shall be done in 'tha t • maru-ler 'or not done at all. It was also put.forth that the doctrine of implied power does not get attracted while interpreting Section 17 of the Act. • 8. A counter affidavit was filed, by the repondents cortending, inter alia, that the Regional Committees have been empowered to grant recognition and 'permissions to the institutions desirous of conducting teachers training courses and the power also rests with the Regional Committees to derecognize a particular institution inder Section 17 of the Act which provides for contravention of the provisions of. the Act and consequences thieof. The stand that there is no provision in Section 17 for' 'causing inspection is totally devoid of substance inasmuch as the Regional Conimitee, on its own motiOn, or on any representation received from any • person, on being satisfied that any institution has contravened any of the provisions of the Ads 01 the Rules, Regulations, Oideis made or issued LPA 24212011 with connected hatters • . , , , • page 8 of 50 'I thereuider, or any conditions subject to which recognition under sub- sectin (3) of Section 14 or permission under sub-section (3) of Section 15 was gianted, may withdiaw iecognthon of such iecognized instiftition for : easo1s to be recorded in writing. The satisfaction can be arrived at by causinginspection of the institutionby a team consitirig of professionals / experts in the field who, after inspection, submit their report which is ultimately considered by the Regional Committee before proceeding further in terms of the procedures laid down under Section 17 of the Act. If the Regional Committee without inspection would arrive at a conclusion that the recognition granted is to be withdrawn, the said proccdure can be termed as arbitrary. The inspction is caused in the interest of the instjtution and the purpose of inspectiot is for fair àsscssment and • objective satisfaction. 9: it was centended that the writ petition had beeti preferred to preempt and prevent the NCTE and NRC from going ahead with the process of inspection in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Iules and Regulations fratued thereunder. A recogrdzed institution can. \(> neither deny for obstruct the NRC from causing inspection for .sceitaining as to whether the institution concerned is complying with the povisions of the Act and the Regulations framed therdunder. The assertion that casing of an hspection tatamounts to coercive action is devoid. of any substance and, in fact, it is an Act of preemption from conducting an inspection. There is no right irthered as claimec in the writ LPA 24212011 with connected matters page 9 of 50 \ pefitioh and, therefore; the question of infringement of the.same toes not arise. It is urged that when the Regional Committee intended to cause inspection, the institutions held a. large demonstration outside the offic of the NCTE. Headquarters at New Delhi and about hundred persns barged into the room of the Chair Person of NCTE .and started thumping the table and made wild gestures against him. They wanted an assurance that NCTE. / NRC would not go ahead. The situation became vëry tense and the aiithorities were constrained to report the matter to the police authorities for lodging an FIR against the persons concerned. A..copy of the complaint dated 16.6.2009 written by the Under Secrety to the SHO, I.P. Estate .Polie Statipu was brought on record as Annexue R-2. h was put forth that the institution had already been inspected by, the expert committee constituted by the NRC on 2.7.2009 and submitted its report to the NRC and the NRC, after considering the reports, issued sho' cause notice on 4.8.2009 under Section 17 of the Act and the reply to the same was awaited. 10 . if was the stand in the return that the power of withdrawal as engrafted under Section 17 of the Act empowers the NRC to iiitiate the pic'cess for ascertaining whether a particular institution is complying with the prbvisions. of the Ad and the provisions framed thereunder and, the Regional Committee may initiate such a process either on its own tion or on a representation made by any person. It was also put forth that the same is done so that tlire is no hraction of the statutory' provisions and further to erLsure that the provisions of the Act, the Rules, Regulations and the norms are appropriately followed. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the writ petition, the NRc, in its 155th meeting held from 23rd to 25'' January, 2010, decided to withdraw the recognition of the appellants in respect of all the three courses and pursuant to the said decisibn, the NRC passec[ a formal order of withdrawal of recognition of all the three courses vide Amexure A-13. A corrigendum was issued by the NRC on 26.2.2010 deciding to keej the oder of withdi'hwai of recognition of the appellants in abeya±ice till the outcome of the writ petition which has been pending before the learned Single Judge. At this juncre, we may reproduce the question c posed by the learned Single Judge: "Whether under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, the Regional Committee has any power to inspect an Institution granted tecognition under the said Act or whether the power of suh • inspection is only with the Council constitution under the said Act." After posing the said question, the learned Single Judge referred to 'various provisions of the Act and certain decisions in the field and carrie to holci that the contentions of the writ petitioner did not deserve acceptance and the inspection by the Regional Committee could not be faulted because of lack of authority as the said Committee has the power to mspect the insttutionto which recog1tition has been granted. LPA 24212011 with connected matters page 11 ofSO We have heard Mr.Sanjay Sharawat, learned counsel for the ppellthit, and Mi Mayank Manish with Mr,Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. Mr. Sharawat, learned counsel for the appellant ha raised the • following contentions: (a) When the language of the piovision is cleai and unambiguous, it was unwarranted On the part of the learned Single Judge to incorporate sornetling which is not tjere in Section 17 and thereby entred into the field of legislation. (h) Under the scheme of the NCTE Act, there are two statutory bodies, • . namely, the Central Council and the Regional Committee. The Council is the nodal regulatory body entrusted with, vast functions. and powers under Sections 12, 13, 18 and 32 of the Act which is the heart and soul of the state and responsible for laying clown th J norms and standards and ensuring for their coiplianceand further • the power to conduct . inspection is conferred expres1y upon the Council under Sectibn 13 and this power is available to the Council. alone and can be exercisedaftèr recognition has been granfed to the institions. There is no other provision in.the Act which speaks of • • • • inspection and, hence, the post-recognition inspection would lie • • with the Central Council. The said legislative intent i clear, nianifest and unambiguous and, hence, the learned Single Ju dge has clearly erred in his interpretation.of Section 17 of the Act. . \6 •LA 24212011 with connected matters : • • poge 12 of 50 Section 31 of the Act confrs power on the Central Government to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act and there is a specific provision in subsection (e) under which the rules are requiied to be framed for the purpose of regulating the power o'f inspecon mer Secon 13. lJnder Section 32 of then 4ct, NCTE is vested, with the powers to frame regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act and none of the provision.s confer any power on the Central Goverment or the NCTE to frame rules or regulaons for conferment of power on' the Regional Committee relating to post recognition inspection., When the power is absent in Section 17, the doctrine of implied power cannot be implanted into it inasmuch as the said doctTine can only be invoked in cases where when an Act confers jurisdiction to do a pait'iculai thing, it also conleis, by implication, the powei of doing all such acts or employing such means as are essentially necessary for its execution. The said doctrine can legitimately he invoked when it is found' that the duty has been imposed or the power conferred on an authority by a statute and it is furtheT found that the duty cannot he discharged or the power cannot be exercised • . 'unfes some auxiliary or incidental ppwer. is presumed to exist. When the learned Single Judge has not opined that it is ibsoiuLeiy essential that the 'Regional Committee must possess power to conduct iispection of recozed institutions in order to effectively LPA 24212011 with connected matters page 13 of 50 discharge its statutory obligation, to implant such power in the language of Section 17 of the Act causes violence to the basic tenets of statutoty interpretation. The learned Single Judge has erred in holding that a stafti tory body, i.e.,. regulatory in character, has to be given full play and, hence, to • be held to be empowered to do all things necessary to enable it to • effectively regulate what it has been constituted to regulate though the concept of invocation of herent power by a statutory body is 'ui<nown to law. The NCTE Act is a self-contained code and expressly deals with all • aspects fbr. regulating teacher education system in the country and, af.ter grant of recognition, the Regional Committee does not have any power to conduct inspection in order to ascertain whether the said institution is complying with the provisions of the Act or not. The recognition of an institution can be withdrawn. strictly in accordance with the express provisions of the Act 'which has been spelt out in SectLion 17 of the Act and the words used underSection 17 are capable of ordy singular interpretation and, hence, t.he interpretation placed by the learned Single Judge is absolu t:ely unacceptable. The learned Single Judge by the order impugned maae...an effort to • . • supply the statutory omission which is not permissible. The order of the learned Single Judge suffers from incurable infirmity as he J.m,s LPA 24212011 wi/i connected matters . . • page 14. of 50 \cl • . . ndeavoured to p'erceive a coilict between two provisions in a stainte and harmonise them to bring in consistency though there is no inconsistency in the provisions. That apart, when the provisions are absolutely plain, clear and unambiguous, the interpretation should have been placed regard being had to be language employed. (h) The learned Single Judge misinterpretated SectiOn 20(6) of the Act to come to the conclusion that the Central Council can assign certain powers to the Regional Comrnittee in addition to the functions which are given under Sections 14, 15 and 17 but the statutory authorities are required to function within the staintoy, framework and there cannot be conferral of additional power which travels beyond the statutory parameters. That apart, when the legislature • has vested the power with a superior body, the said power canaot be carried out by a subordinate body, that is, the Regional Coimnittee. The learned counsel for the appellant, to bolster the aforesaid dontentions, has placed reliaice on number of citations to a 'few of which we shall ref er.td while dwelling upon the fundamental issues. • 15; Mr.', Mayànf Mahish1 learned counsel for the respondents, per- contra; has propoundedthe following contentions: (1) The term. 'Council' which has been defined in the dictionary clause Secon 1(c) to mean National Council for Teacher Education as per Sction 3(1) of the Act has to be read in a comprehensive.manner to LPA 24212011 with connected matte/-s page 15 of 50 • cover Regional Committee as the Regional Committees are constituted and established by the Council. Section 2(1) clef i.ns reçogtiize institution to mean an institution recognized by the Council under Section 14 and, therefore, the term 'Council' cannot be re.sicted to the Cenfral Council as is contended by the learned • . counsel for the appellant. (ii). Section 17 of the Act empowers the Regional Committee to . . withdraw the recoition if thereis conavention of the provisions of the Act and, hence, it would be totally incompatible and absurd if • . .. it is interpreted that the inspection has to be done only by the National council after the Tecognition is granted. (iii) Sections 13, 14, 15 and 17 are to be read in a purposive manner to give effect to and to. carry on the purposes of the Act and not to create impedimnt. (iv). Section 20(6) empowers the Rgiona1 Committee to perform such other functions as may be determined by the Regulations and, therefore, to deny the said authority the power of inspection once it 'had granted recoition is wholly inconceivable and, therefore, the interprettion