STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus LBS B.ED. COLLEGE AND ORS.
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 298, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Facts
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 298 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
LBS B.ED. COLLEGE AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9193 of2016) 
SEPTEMBER 08, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND C. NAGAPPAN -, JJ.] 
National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - ss. 7, 
12, 32 - National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, 
Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 - Regns: 4, 5, 7 - Grant 
of recognition by the NCTE lo private institutions desirous of 
conducting teacher training courses· - Role of State - Held: NCTE 
is required to take into consideration opinion of the State, for the 
State has a vital role to offer proper comments supported by due 
reasoning - However, the final authority rests with the NCTE -
.Education/Educational Institutions. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The State has a say, may be a limited one, because 
the State's say is not binding on the NCTE. However, the NCTE 
is required to take the same into consideration, for the State has 
a vital role to offer proper comments supported by due reasoning. 
Final authority rests with the NCTE. Whenever an application is 
received under the Regulations framed by NCTE for grant of 
recognition, the NCTE shall be guided by its own Regulations. 
The NCTE shall take into consideration the recommendations 
and views of the State despite the fact that it has the final say. 
[Paras 14 and 15) [309-C-E] 
State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan 
Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors.(2006) 9 SCC 1: 2006 
(3) SCR 638;
National Council for Teacher Education 
& others v. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan 
& others (20ll) 3 SCC 238 : 2011 (2) SCR 291; St. 
Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, 
National Council for Teacher Education and another 
(2003) 3 SCC 321 : 2003 (1) SCR 975; Adarsh Shiksha 
Mahavidyalaya & others v. Subhash Rahangdale & 
298
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. LBS B.ED. COLLEGE AND ORS. 
499 
others (2012) 2 SCC 425 : 2012 (2) SCR 1; Maa 
A 
Vaishno Devi Mahi/a Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar 
Pradesh & Ors. (2013) 2 SCC 617: 2012 (13) SCR 
810 - Referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2006 (3) SCR 638 
referred to 
Para8 
2011 (2) SCR 291 
referred to 
Para9 
2003 (1) SCR 975 
referred to 
Para 10 
2012 (2) SCR 1 
referred to 
Para 11 
2012 (13) SCR 810 
referred to 
Para 13 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2015 in D.B. Civil 
Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1866 of2014 passed by the High Court of 
Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal Nos. 9184, 9187, 9190, 9191, 9182, 9185, 9189, 9180, 
9181, 9183, 9186, 9188, 9192of2016. 
P. S .. Narasimha, ASG, Shiv Mangal Sharma, AAG, Ms. Ruchi 
Kohli, Gaurav Sharma, AOR, Ms. Abhinandini Sharma, Shrey Kapoor, 
S. N. Singh, Prateek Bhatia, Ms. Vara Gaur, Dhawal Mohan, Advs. for 
the Appellants. 
· 
Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Vivek Tankha, Sr.Advs, Anand Varma, 
Mritunjay Kumar Sinha, Gaurav Agrawal, Chandra Prakash, AOR, Disha 
Yaish, Amitesh Kumar, Shashank Shankar Singh, Ravi_ Kant, Mayank 
Manish, Kumnan D., Sachin Pujari, Ms. Nikita Shrivastava, 
Harshvardhan Jha, Yugandhara Jha, Adarsh Upadhyay, Ms. Asha 
Gopalan Nair, Ms. Nivedita Nair for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DIPAK MISRA, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. The present appeals, by special leave, call in question the legal 
acceptability of the common order dated 22.01.2015 passed
by the High 
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in D.B. Civil Special 
Appeal (Writ) No. 1866of2014 whereby the Division Bench has allowed 
the students to be admitted for the academic year 2015-2016 subject to 
fulfillment of the new guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
300 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
Education (NCTE) on 28.11.2014. At the very inception, it is seemly to 
note that the directions issued by the High Court have already been 
given effect to and neither the learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan 
nor the NCTE, the respondent herein, nor the other respondents have 
any kind of dispute over the same. 
3. The crux of the controversy is whether the State Government 
has any say in the matter of grant of recognition to the institutions who 
apply for establishing institutions to get recognition from the NCTE under 
the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for brevity, "the 
Act") and the Regulations framed thereunder. It is necessary to state 
here that the learned Single Judge had arrived at the conclusion that the 
State has remotely any authority or say in the matter of grant of 
recognition and the Division Bench has concurred with the judgment of 
the learned single Judge without adverting to the said aspect. 
4. We have heard Mr. P.S. Narsimha, learned Additional Solicitor 
General along with Mr. Shiv Mangal Shanna, learned counsel for the 
State of Rajasthan, Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the NCTE 
and Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, learned senior counsel along with Mr. 
Anand Varma, learned counsel for the respondents. 
5. The Act was enacted to provide for the establishment of a 
National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieving planned 
and
co-ordinated development of the teacher education system throughout 
the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of nonns and standards 
in the teacher education system and for matter connected therewith. 
The Act came into force on 30'h December, 1993. To appreciate the 
issue that has emanated for consideration, it is nc::cessary to understand 
the scheme of the Act. Section 3 deals with establishment of the NCTE. 
Section 12 enumerates the functions of the NCTE: We think it appropriate 
to reproduce Section 12, in entirety:-
"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 detennination and maintenance of standards for teacher 
education and for the purposi::s of performing 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;
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. LBS B.ED. COLLEGE AND ORS. 
301 
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
(b) 
make recommendations to the Central and State 
A 
Government, Universities, University Grants Commission 
and recognised institutions in the matter of preparation of 
suitable plans and programmes in the field of teacher 
e~ucation; 
(c) 
co-ordinate and monitor teacher education and its 
B 
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 c 
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 ,guide I ines for compliance by recognised institutions, 
D 
for starting new courses or training, and for providing 
physical and instructional facilities, staffing pattern and staff 
qualification; 
(g) 
lay down standards in respect of examinations leading to 
teacher education qualifications, criteria for admission to 
such examinations and schemes of courses or training; 
E 
(h) 
lay down guidelines regarding tuition fees and other fees 
chargeable by recognised institutions; 
(i) 
promOfe and conduct innovation and research in various 
areas of teacher education and disseminate the results ·· 
thereof; 
F 
G) 
examine and review periodically the
implementation of the 
norms, guidelines and standards laid down by the Council, 
and to suitably advise the recognised institution; 
(k) 
evolve suitable performance appraisal system, norms and 
mechanism for enforcing accountability on recognised 
G 
institutions; 
(I) 
formulate schemes for various levels of teacher education 
and identify recognised institutions and set up new institutions 
for teacher development programmes; 
H
302 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
(m) 
take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
.,. 
G 
H 
teacher education; and 
(n) 
perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it by 
the Central Government." 
6. Section 32 of the Act empowers the NCTE, by notification in 
the official gaz,ette, to make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions 
of the Act and the rules made thereunder, generally to carry out the 
provisions of the Act. The NCTE had framed a set of Regulations, i.e., 
National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and 
Procedure) Regulations, 2009. The Regulations were superseded and 
another set of Regulations, namely, the National Council for Teacher 
Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (For 
short, "the 2014 Regulations") came into force. Regulation 4 deals with 
eligibility which stipulates the categories of institutions who are eligible 
for consideration of the applications under the 2014 Regulations. 
Regulation 5 deals with the manner of making application and the time 
limit. Regulation 7 provides for processing of applications. The relevant 
part of the said Regulation which is pertinent for the adjudication of the 
controversy that has emanated herein, is extracted below:-
"7. Processing of applications.-(1) 
In case an application 
is not complete, or requisite documents are not attached with the 
application, the application shall be treated : incomplete and
rejected, and application fees paid shall be forfeited. 
(2) The application shall be summarily rejected under one or more 
of the following circumstances-
(i) failure to furnish the application fee, as prescribed under rule 9 
of the National Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997 on or 
before the date of submission of on line application; 
(ii) failure to submit print out of the applications made online along 
with the land documents as required under sub-regulation (4) of 
Regulation 5 within fifteen days of the submission of the online 
application. 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
( 4)A written communication along with a copy of the application 
form submitted by the institution shall be sent by the office of 
Regional Committee to the State Government or the Union territory
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. LBS B.ED. COLLEGE AND ORS. 
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
administration and the affiliating body concerned within thirty days 
from the receipt of application, in chronological order of the receipt 
of the original application in the Regional Committee. 
(5) On receipt of the communication, the State Government or 
the Union territory administration concerned shall furnish its 
recommendations or comments to the Regional Committee 
concerned within forty five days from the date of issue of the 
letter to the State Government or Union territory, as the case may 
be. In case, the State Government or Union Territory 
Administration is not in favour of recognition, it shall provide 
detailed reasons or grounds thereof with necessary statistics, which 
shall be taken into consideration by the Regionaf Committee 
concerned while disposing of the application. 
(6) If the recommendation of the State Government is not received 
within the aforesaid period, the Regional Committee concerned 
shall send a reminder to the State Government providing further 
time of another thirty days to furnish their comments on the 
proposal. In case no reply is received, a second reminder shall be 
given for furnishing recommendation within fifteen days from the 
issue of such second reminder. ln case no reply is received from 
the State Government within aforesaid period, the. Regional 
Committee shall process and decide the case on merits and placing 
the application before the Regional
Committee shall not be deferred 
on account of non-receipt of comments or recommendation of 
the State Government. 
(7) After consideration of the recommendation of the State 
Government or on its own merits, the Regional Committee 
concerned shall decide that institution shall be inspected by a team 
of experts called visiting team with a view to assess the level of 
preparedness of the institution to commence the course. In case 
of open and distance learning programmes, sampled study centres 
shall be inspected. Inspection shall not be subject to the consent 
of the institution, rather the decision of the Regional Committee to 
cause the inspection shall be communicated to the institution with 
the direction that the inspection shall be caused on any day after 
ten days from the date of communication by the Regional officer. 
The Regional Committee shall ensure that inspection is conducted 
ordinarily within thirty days from the date of its communication to 
303 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
304 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
the institution. The institution shall be required to provide details 
about the infrastructure and other preparedness on the specified 
proforma available on the website of the Council so the visiting 
team at the time of inspection along with building completion 
certificate issue by the competent civil authority, if not submitted 
earlier: 
Provided that the Regional Committee shall organise such 
inspections strictly in chronological order of the receipt of 
application for the cases to be approved by it. 
Provided further that the members of the visiting team for inspection 
shall be decided by the Regional Committee out of the panel of 
experts approved by the Council and in accordance with the visiting 
team policy of the Council." 
7. Before we advert to the impact of the scheme of the 
Regulations, it is necessary to refer to the authorities of this Court that 
have stated about the role of the State in the context of grant of recognition 
by the NCTE under the provisions of the Act. 
8. In State of Mallaraslltra v. Sant Dnyanes/1war S/1ikslian 
Sllastra Maliavidyalaya & Ors.', a three-Judge Bench, after adverting 
to the legislative power of the Parliament, the provisions of the Act, the 
power conferred on the NCTE under the Act and the role ascribed to 
the universities, eventually opined as follciws:-
"78.The respondents have stated that they have spent huge amount 
and incurred substantial
expenditure on infrastructure, library, staff, 
etc. and after satisfying about the necessary requirements oflaw, 
permission had been granted by the NCTE. If the said action is 
set aside on the basis of the decision of the State Government, 
irreparable loss will be caused to them. Since in our view, the 
order passed and action taken by NCTE cannot be termed illegal 
or unlawful and the State Government could not have passed the 
impugned order refusing permission on the ground of so called 
'policy' of not allowing new B.Ed. college to be opened, it is not 
necessary for us to delve into further the said contention. 
79.Before parting with the matter, we may state that at one stage, 
the High Court has observed that 
1 (2006) 9 sec 1
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. LBS B.ED. COLLEGE AND ORS. 
fDIPAK MISRA, J.l 
"in so far as the University is concerned, considering the provisions 
of Section 15 of the NCTE Act, once permission has been granted 
under Section 14, the University is bound to grant affiliation in 
terms of the Act, Rule~ and Statutes. Section 83 requires the 
University to grant affiliation only after permission is granted under 
Section 82 of the Maharashtra University Act. To that extent the 
provisions of Section 82 and 83 are inconsistent with the 
provisions of NCTE Act and are null and void".? 
(emphasis supplied) 
80. In our opinion, the observations that the provisions of Sections 
82 and 83 of the Maharashtra University Act are "null and void" 
could not be said to be correct. To us, it appears that what the 
High Court wanted to convey was that the provisions of Sections 
82 and 83 would not apply to an institution covered by 1993 Act. 
As per the scheme of the Act, once recognition has been granted 
by NCTE under Section 14(6) of the Act , every university 
('examining body') is obliged to grant affiliation to such institution 
and sections 82 and 83 of the University Act do not apply to such 
cases. 
81. Since we have decided the matters on merits, we have not 
dealt with preliminary objection raised by the colleges that the 
State cannot be said to be 'person aggrieved' and, therefore, has 
no locus standi to challenge the decision ofNCTE." 
• 
9. After the pronouncement of the judgment,
the NCTE and the 
States followed their due course of action. With the passage of time, 
controversy arose relating to the role of the State again in National 
Council for Teacher Education & others v. Sliri Sltyam .Sltikslra 
Prashikslian Sanstlian & others~. The Court referred to various 
Regulations framed by the NCTE after the judgment was rendered in 
Sant Dnyanesliwar Shikshan Sliastra Maliavidyalaya (supra) and 
observed as follows:-
"31.By fixing 31st October of the preceding year, the Council has 
ensured that the Regional Committee gets at least 7 months for 
scrutiny of the application, processing thereof, receipt of 
recommendation/suggestion from the State Government/Union 
Territory Administration, inspection of the infrastructure, etc. made 
2 (2011) 3 sec 238 
305 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
306 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 5 S.C.R . 
. available by the applicant before an objective decision is taken to 
· grant or not to grant recognition. Likewise, by fixing 15th May of 
the year succeeding the cut-off date fixed for submission of 
application, the Council has ensured that adequate time is available 
to the institution to complete the course, teaching as well as training 
arid the students get an opportunity to comply with the requirement 
of minimum attendance. For academic session 2008-2009, the 
cut-off date was amended because the 2007 Regulations were 
notified on 27.12.2007 and going by the cut off dates specified in 
clauses (4) and (5) of Regulation 5, no application could have 
been entertained and no institution could have been recognized 
for B.Ed. course." 
10. It is worthy to note here that the two-Judge Bench referred to 
the authority in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional 
Director, National Council for Teacher Education and anotlter3, 
reproduced certain passages from. the said decision and other authorities 
including the understanding of the Court as regards the authority in Sant 
Dnyanes/iwar Sliiksl1an S/iastra Mahavidyalaya (supra) and finally 
observed:-
"40. In State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan 
Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others (supra), this Court considered 
the· question whether, after grant of recognition by NCTE, the 
State Government can refuse to issue no objection
certificate for 
starting B.Ed. colleges on the premise that a policy decision in 
that regard had been taken. After adverting to the relevant 
provisions of the Constitution, the Act and the Regulations and 
the judgment in St. John Teachers Training Institute v. Regional 
" Director, NCTE (supra), the Court held that final authority to take 
decision on the issue of grant of recognition vests with the NCTE 
and it cannot be denuded of that authority on the ground that the 
State Government/Union Territory Administration has refused to 
issue· NOC." 
11. Almost in continuity, the Court in Adars/1 Sltikslta 
Mahavidyalaya & otlters v. Subhasl1 Raliangdale & ot/1ers4 
addressed the issue whether the State Government has any say in the 
· matter of grant of recognition to the private institutions desirous of 
'(2003) 3 sec 321 
' (2(}) 2) 2 sec 425
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. LBS B.ED. COLLEGE AND ORS. 
fDIPAK MISRA, J.l 
conducting teacher training courses. The Court referred to the 2005 and 
2007 Regulations and opined that the rationale behind the said provisions 
is discernible from the guidelines issued by the NCTE vide letter dated 
2.2.1996. Be it noted, the relevant portions of the said letter was 
reproduced in Sant Dnyanesl1war Sllikslmn Sllastra Malmvidyalaya 
(supra). Explaining various aspects, the Court ultimately ruled thus:-
"77. The above survey-of precedents makes it clear that under 
Regulation 7(2) and (3), the State Government/Union Territory 
Administration is entitled to make recommendations on the 
application made for grant of recognition and the same are required 
to be considered by the concerned Regional Committee before 
taking a final decision on the application. 
78. Learned counsel for the appellants did not seriously contest 
the position that the provisions contained in Sections 14(3) and 
15(3) read with Regulation 7(2), (3),(4), (5) and (9) are mandatory 
and the Regional Committee cannot grant recognition unless it is 
satisfied that the applicant has fulfilled the mandatory conditions 
prescribed in the 1993 Act and the Regulations. They also did not 
dispute that in view of Section 16, examining body cannot grant 
affiliation, whether provisional or permanent to any institution or 
hold examination for the courses of training conducted by a 
recognized institution unless the institution
coneerned has obtained 
recognition under Section 14 or permission for a course or training 
under Section 15." 
I 2. While enumerating the conclusions in seriatim, the Court held:-
"87. As a sequel to the above discussion, we hold that the impugned 
orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference 
by this Court. We also reiterate that: 
• 
(i) The Regional Committees established under Section 20 of the 
1993 Act are duty bound to ensure that no private institution offering 
or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education is 
granted recognition unless it satisfies the conditions specified in 
Section 14(3)(a) of the 1993 Act and Regulations 7 and 8 of the 
Regulations. Likewise, no recognised institution intending to start 
any new course or training in teacher education shall be granted 
permission unless it satisfies the conditions specified in Section 
15(3)(a) of the 1993 Act and the relevant Regulations. 
307 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
308 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
(ii) The State Government/UT Administration, to whom a copy of 
the application made by an institution for grant of recognition is 
sent in terms of Regulation 7(2) of the Regulations, is under an 
obligation to make its recommendations within the time specified 
in Regulation 7(3) of the Regulations. 
-
(iii) While granting recognition, the Regional Committees are 
required to give due weightage to the.recommendations made by 
the State Government/UT Administration and keep in view the 
observations made by this Court in St. Johns Teachers Training 
Institute v. Regional Director, NCTE (supra) and National Council 
for Teacher Education v. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan 
Sansthan, which have been extracted in the earlier part of this 
judgment. 
(iv) The recognition granted by the Regional Committees under 
Section I 4(3)(a) of the 1993 Act read with Regulations 7 and 8 of 
the Regulations and permission granted under Section I 5(3)(a) 
read with the relevant Regulations shall operate prospectively, 
i.e., from the date of communication of the order ofrecognition or 
permission, as the case may be." 
13. Yet again, another two-Judge Bench in Maa Vais/mo Devi 
Mahi/a Ma/1avidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 5 opined 
that Regulations framed under the Act clearly show that upon receiving 
an application for recommendation, the NCTE shall send a copy of the 
application with its letter inviting
recommendations/comments of the State 
Government on all aspects within a period of30 days. To such application, 
the State is expected to respond with its complete comments within a 
period of 60 days. In other words, the opinion of the State on all matters 
that may concern it in any of the specified fields are called for. The 
Court observed that this is the stage where the State and its Department 
should play a vital role and they must take all precautions to offer proper 
comments supported by due reasoning. Once these comments are sent 
and the State Government gives its opinion which is considered by the 
NCTE and examined in conjunction with the report of the experts, it 
may grant or refuse recognition. Once it grants recognition, then such 
grant att~ins supremacy vis-a-vis the State Government as well as the 
affiliating body. Normally, these questions cannot be re-agitated at the 
time of grant of affiliation. Proceeding further, it was held that once the 
'(2013)2 SCC6!7
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. LBS B.ED. COLLEGE AND ORS. 
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
University conducts inspection in tenns of its Statutes or Act, without 
offending the provisions of the Act and conditions of recognition, then 
the opinion of the State Government at the second stage is a mere fonnality 
unless there was a drastic and unacceptable mistake or the entire process 
was vitiated by fraud or there was patently eminent danger to life of the 
students in the school because of non-compliance of a substantive 
condition imposed by either of the bodies but in the normal circumstances, 
the role of the State is a very fonnal one and the State is not expected to 
obstructthe commencement of admission process and academic courses 
once recognition is granted and affiliation is found to be acceptable. 
14. As we find from the aforesaid authorities as well as the 
Regulations framed by the NCTE, the State has a say, may be a limited 
one. We are inclined to use the word 'limited' because the State's say is 
not binding on the NCTE. However, the NCTE is required to take the 
same into consideration, for the State has a vital role to offer proper 
comments supported by due reasoning. It needs no special emphasis to 
say that final authority rests with the NCTE. It is the clear legal position. 
15. In course of hearing, we have been apprised that the NCTE 
has granted recognition to some of the institutions. As the recognition 
has already been granted, the controversy with regard to the
said 
institutions shall stand closed. Needless to say, in future, whenever an 
application is received under the Regulations for grant of recognition, 
the NCTE shall be guided by its own Regulations and the judgments of 
this Court and the State shall remain bound by the principles set out 
hereinabove. Needless to say, the NCTE shall take into consideration 
the recommendations and views of the State despite the fact that it has 
the final say. 
16. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no 
order as to costs. 
AnkitGyan 
Appeals disposed of. 
_, 
309 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F