1 W.P.NO.8010.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8010 OF 2009 Shriram Dnyan Shikshan Prasrak Mandal, Aghur Vaijpur, Station Road, Aurangabad Through its President:- Nandkumar Balnath Shinde, Age 38 years Occup: President. And Social Worker, R/o Vaijapur,Tq.Vaijapur, District Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Mantralya, Mumbai-32 2. Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune. (Copies of Respondent No.1 & 2 to be served through office of Govt. Pleader,Bombay High Court,Bench at Aurangabad ) 3. National Council for Teacher Education( A.Statutory body of the Govt. of India Manas Bhavan, Shamla Hills, Bhopal-462 002. (Copy to be served on standing Counsel,for NCTE ) 4. National Council for Teacher Education Hans Bhavan Wing2, I Bahadurshah Marg, New Delhi. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 W.P.NO.8010.09 ... Shri.A.M.Karad, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.H.Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri S.S.Bora,Advocate for respondent No.3 ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER K.K.TATED, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent the respective counsel of the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the orders dated 28th May, 2009 and 3rd June 2009 passed by the Regional Director, NCTE and order dated 08th October, 2009 passed by the Appellate Authority of NCTE, rejecting the petitioners’ application for grant of recognition for B.Ed. Course in SEC Course of one year duration under Sections 14 and 15 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. 3 W.P.NO.8010.09 A FEW FACTS OF THE MATTER ARE AS UNDER :- 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, and Societies Registration Act. The petitioner with the intention to open B.Ed. College made an application to the respondent No.3 National Council for Teacher Education (Hereinafter referred to as “NCTE”) on 19th September,2007. On receipt of the application of the petitioner to open B.Ed. College, respondent No.3 issued Code number, vide letter dated 2nd January 2008. Thereafter, by letter dated 8th November, 2008, the respondent informed the petitioner that expert team is likely to visit the petitioner-Institute tentatively on 01.12.2008 to 10.12.2008 for inspection under Section 14th of NCTE Act. 4. Thereafter, respondents by their order dated 28th May, 2009 and 3rd June 2009 informed the petitioner-Institute that in view of inspection conducted on 17th December, 2008 and in view of 4 W.P.NO.8010.09 negative recommendation received from Maharashtra State Government in respect of B.Ed. Course the WRC decided that no further processing will be done in the case of petitioner-Institute and the proposal of the petitioner is treated as closed. 5. Being aggrieved by the said letter and orders dated 28th May, 2009 and 3rd June, 2009 issued by respondent No.3 NCTE, the petitioner-Institute filed a statutory Appeal before the Principal Secretary NCTE at New Delhi. The Appeal was heard by the Appellate Authority and by giving a cryptic reason that the Government of Maharashtra took Policy decision not to allow establishment of more D.Ed. Colleges in the State, and the recommendation of State of Government was accepted by NCTE. In view of that, there is no justification for accepting the Appeal, and accordingly, the Appeal stands rejected and the orders dated 28th May, 2009 and 3rd June 2009 were confirmed. 5 W.P.NO.8010.09 6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner preferred the present Writ Petition. 7. Mr. Karad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter the State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others reported in 2006 AIR SCW 2048, wherein the Supreme Court has held in uncertain terms that the State Government could not scuttle proposal and it was the sole responsibility and function of the respondents to consider and decide the proposal on its own merits. The paras No. 62, 63 and 68 of the Apex Court Judgment read as under :- “62] From the above decisions, in our judgment the law appears to be very well settled. So far as co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research scientific and technical institutions are concerned, the subject is exclusively covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII to the Constitution and State has no power to 6 W.P.NO.8010.09 encroach upon the legislative power of Parliament. It is only when the subject is covered by Entry 25 of List III of Schedule VII to the Constitution that there is concurrent power of Parliament as well as state Legislatures and appropriate Act can be by the State Legislature subject to limitations and restrictions under the Constitution. 63] In the instant case, admittedly, Parliament has enacted 1993 Act, which is in force. The preamble of the Act provides for establishment of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) with a view to achieving planned and coordinated development of the teacher -education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher-education system and for matters connected therewith. With a view to achieving that object,National Council for Teacher Education has been established at four places by the Central Government. It is thus clear that the field is fully and completely occupied by an Act of Parliament and covered by Entry 66 of list I of Schedule VII. It is, therefore, not open to the State Legislature to encroach upon the said field. Parliament alone could have exercised the power by making appropriate law. In the circumstances, it is not open to State Government to refuse permission relying on a State Act or on Policy consideration.’ 68] In view of the fact, however, that according to us the final authority lies with NCTE and we are supported in 7 W.P.NO.8010.09 taking that view by various decisions of this Court, NCTE can not be deprived of its authority or power in taking an appropriate decision under the Act irrespective of absence of No Objection Certificate by the state Government/Union Territory. Absence or non-production of NOC by the institution, therefore, was immaterial and irrelevant so far as the power of NCTE is concerned.” 8. In view of the above law declare by the Apex Court, we are inclined to allow this petition and consequently we allow the petition and quash and set aside the impugned orders. 9. The respondent No.3 shall remand the matter to the Regional Director, National Council of Teachers Education for fresh enquiry and decision according to law on petitioner’s application for grant of B.Ed. Course. 10. The Regional Director, National Council of Teachers Education shall take into consideration the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. 8 W.P.NO.8010.09 11. The Regional Director, National Council of Teachers Education shall deal with the petitioner’s application on its own merit and pass order in accordance with law indicated above as expeditious as possible and in any case within 12 weeks from today. 12. Rule is thus made absolute in the above terms. 13. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK