IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7076 of 2010 Sattar Memorial College of Education through its Principal, Haji Harman Road, P.S. Phulwari Sharif, District Patna- 801505……………………………………………………………....Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director, (Administration)- cum - Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 6. The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 7. The Member Secretary, N.C.T.E., Hans Bhawan Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. 8. The Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee N.C.T.E., Bhuneshwar, Orissa………………………………………………………………….Respondents With CWJC No.18508 of 2010 Nalanda Teacher's Training College, through its Secretary Dr. Shailendar Kumar Singh, S/o Late Rajendar Pd, Mahi Khandak, Nalanda, P.S. Bihar Sharif Thana, District Nalanda, Bihar…………………………………………………………………..…….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director, (Administration)- cum - Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 6. The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 7. The Member Secretary, N.C.T.E., Hans Bhawan Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. 8. The Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee N.C.T.E., Bhuneshwar, Orissa…………………………………………………………….……….Respondents With CWJC No.17875 of 2010 2 1. Veerayatan B.Ed. College, Pawapuri, District Nalanda, Bihar through its Principal Radha Krishna Singh. 2. Radhakrishna Singh, son of Shri Sita Ram Singh, Resident of Veerayatan, Rajgir, District Nalanda, Bihar…………..Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources and Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Magadh University, Bodhgaya, Bihar through its Registrar. 3. The Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodhgaya, Bihar. 4. The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodhgaya, Bihar. 5. The Inspector of Colleges, Magadh University, Bodhgaya, Bihar 6. National Council for Teacher Education, Hans Bhavan Wing II, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 through its Member Secretary. 7. The Member Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education, Hans Bhavan Wing II, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002. 8. The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, Eastern Regional Committee, 15 Neelkantha Nagar, Nayapalli, Bhubneshwar, Orissa…………………………….…..Respondents ----------- For Petitioner: M/s Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, Rajib Ranjan Jha & Prasant Kumar, Advocates (IN CWJC Nos.7076 & 18508 of 2010) For Petitioner: M/s Alok Kumar Sinha & Rajiv Kumar Singh, Advocates (In CWJC No. 17875 of 2010) For the State: Mr. A. Amanullah, G.A. 4 with Mr. Arun Kr. Prasad, A.C. to G.A.4 (in CWJC No. 7076/2010) For the State: Mr. Amarendra Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G.3 (in CWJC No. 17875/2010) For the Magadh University: Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Advocate (In the all writ petitions) For N.C.T.E.: Mr. S.N. Pathak, Advocate 6 28.02.2011 The three writ applications are being taken up together and are being disposed of 3 by a common order since the facts are almost similar and the questions of law arising in these cases are identical. The three Colleges in question are B. Ed. Colleges functioning within the territorial jurisdiction of Magadh University. After they were established, the Colleges submitted an application to the National Council for Teacher Education (for short, ‘NCTE’) for grant of recognition. Since the Colleges fell within the jurisdiction of Eastern Regional Committee of the NCTE, the matter was referred to the Eastern Regional Committee and it arranged for inspection of the Colleges and thereafter granted them recognition by the letters annexed with each of the writ applications. After the Colleges got recognition from the NCTE, they applied to the University for affiliation. In the first case, the college was granted temporary affiliation for five years which still subsists. So far second and third cases are concerned, institutions were initially granted affiliation for two sessions but thereafter the University did not extend it. 4 It is the case of the University that the University wrote letter to the State Government recommending for approval to grant affiliation, which was replied by the State Government clarifying that the matter was in between the University and NCTE and the State Government had no role to play. In the circumstances, as of today, the two colleges do not have any affiliation from the University. Learned counsel for the petitioners have heavily relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others (reported in (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1) and submitted that the Apex Court has clearly laid down that once recognition is granted to the teacher’s training colleges by the NCTE under the provisions of the NCTE Act, the concerned University or the State Government has no other option than to grant affiliation to such colleges. They submitted that in the exhaustive judgment, the Apex Court has clearly laid down that NCTE Act is a Central Act and has overriding effect upon 5 any State Legislation in the matter of teachers’ education. They submitted that Section 14(6) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 clearly lays down that whenever recognition is granted by the NCTE to an institution, the examining body has to grant affiliation. They submitted that the word ‘shall’ used in sub- section (6) of Section 14 makes it obligatory on the part of the examining body to grant affiliation the moment it receives order under sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the Act from NCTE granting recognition to the institution. After going through the judgment of the Apex Court, this Court finds that the law in this regard has been authoritatively laid down therein. The Apex Court has considered the overriding effect of the NCTE Act and its provisions over any other State Legislation and, after referring to a large number of earlier pronouncements, it has clearly held that the examining body i.e. University has to grant affiliation to an institution the moment the order of the NCTE granting recognition is received with the 6 University. The Apex Court has made it clear that any no objection certificate from the State required under Regulation 16 is only to enable the State Government to furnish facts and figures in respect of the institution to the NCTE for its consideration and, after NCTE Act came into force, the State Government has also no liberty to object or refuse no objection certificate to an institution which may have applied for recognition by the NCTE. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court itself, this Court finds that the respondent University had no other option than to grant affiliation to the colleges in question after the Colleges received recognition from the NCTE. However, the learned counsel for the University submits that the recognition letter of the NCTE itself clearly mentioned that recognition was subject to fulfillment of certain conditions by the colleges which necessarily includes the guidelines of the University Grant Commission also. He submits that even if it is accepted that the University has to grant affiliation to a 7 College which has received recognition from the NCTE, it can always take steps to ensure that the college fulfils all the other conditions for affiliation by the University as laid down in any other law in operation in the field including the guidelines of the UGC. This may be so and learned counsels for the petitioners also do not dispute this role of the University in the matter. But this is not disputed by the learned counsel for the University also that, even in case the University finds that the college in question is not complying with any requirements of law or provisions of any other law for permanent affiliation to the college or is not complying with any guidelines of the UGC, the affiliation cannot be refused to the college or can be cancelled. He accepts that in such a case where the University finds that, in spite of all the steps taken by the University, the College has not fulfilled the necessary requirements or is not complying with the requirements of any other law for the time being force, the University has only an 8 option to refer the matter to the NCTE for proper action or withdrawal of the same. But till then the affiliation has to continue. This being the legal position and as accepted by learned counsels for the parties, this Court has no other option than to direct the University to grant affiliation to the three colleges positively within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order till the time recognition of the NCTE is continuing in their favour. However, this will not come in the way of the University to issue necessary directions and instructions and to take such other steps in respect of the colleges which may be required for compliance of any other law for the time being in force or for fulfilling any other conditions laid down in any other law for such colleges. The writ applications are allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)