THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND versus NALANDA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND OTHERS
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 60, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
v.
NALANDA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 8013 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 10, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions: Grant of recognition for
B.Ed. courses – Order of the State Government not to grant
recognition to the new B.Ed. Colleges and to cancel the recognition
of the respondent no. 1 – Single Judge of the High Court quashed
the said order and directed the National Council for Teachers
Education to take appropriate decision on the application of
respondent No.1 to increase the seats to B.Ed. Course – Upheld by
the Division Bench – On appeal, held: State Government was well
within its right to recommend and/or opine that the State Government
is not in favour of granting further recognition to the new B.Ed.
colleges as against the need of annually 2500 teachers approximately
13000 students would be passing out every year, thus, for the
remaining students, there will be unemployment - Said decision
cannot be said to be arbitrary – Thus, order passed by the High
Court is unsustainable, and is quashed and set aside – Policy
decision.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court committed a serious error in
holding that the decision not to recommend for the new B.Ed.
colleges can be said to be arbitrary. Under the provisions of the
NCTE Regulations, the State is well within its right to make
suitable recommendations. As per Rule 7(5)
of the NCTE
Regulations, 2014, on receipt of the communication from the office
of the Regional Committee to the State, the State Government is
required to send its recommendations or comments to the
Regional Committee. It further provides that in case the State
Government is not in favour of the recommendation, it shall
provide detailed reasons or grounds thereof with necessary
statistics, which shall be taken into consideration by the Regional
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 60
60
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
61
Committee concerned while disposing of the application.
Therefore, when the State Government is required to provide
detailed reasons against grant of recognition with necessary
statistics, it includes the need and/or requirement. Therefore,
the State Government was well within its right to recommend
and/or opine that the State Government is not in favour of granting
further recognition to the new B.Ed. colleges as against the need
of annually 2500 teachers approximately 13000 students would
be passing out every year, therefore, for the remaining students,
there will be unemployment. The said decision cannot be said to
be arbitrary as observed and held by the High Court. The need
of the new colleges looking to the requirement can be said to be
a relevant consideration and a decision not to recommend further
recognition to the new B.Ed. colleges on the need basis cannot
be said to be arbitrary. The impugned judgment and order passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court, confirming the judgment
and order passed by the Single Judge, quashing the order of the
State Government, is unsustainable, and is quashed and set
aside.[Para 9][67-B-F, G-H; 68-A]
Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh v. State
of Maharashtra & Others (1986) 4 SCC 361 – relied
on.
Gangadhar and Another v. Union of India and others
2009 SCC Online Bom. 17; Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila
Mahavidyalaya v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 276/2012 dated 18.07.2018;
State of Rajasthan v. LBS B.Ed. College & Others (2016)
16 SCC 110 : [2016] 5 SCR 298 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(1986) 4 SCC 361
relied on
Para 8
[2016] 5 SCR 298
relied on
Para 4.2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8013
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.09.2018 of the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 144 of 2014.
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. NALANDA COLLEGE OF
EDUCATION AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
62
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Krishnam Mishra, Param Kumar Mishra,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Adarsh Kumar, Ms. Nidhi Nagpal, Advs.
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 144/2014, by
which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the Special
Appeal preferred by the State of Uttarakhand and others and has
confirmed the judgment and order dated 04.04.2014 passed by the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2464 of 2013, by which the learned
Single Judge quashed the order dated 16.07.2013 of the State Government
by which the State Government opined/decided not to grant recognition
to the new B.Ed. Colleges and consequently directed the National Council
for Teachers Education (for short, ‘NCTE’) to take appropriate decision
on the application of respondent No.1 to increase the seats to B.Ed.
course, the State of Uttarakhand has preferred the present appeal.
2. Respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner – Nalanda
College of Education, Dehradun (for short, ‘College’) was granted
recognition for B.Ed. course of one year duration with an annual intake
of 100 students by the NCTE under Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act on
22.02.2008. After the recognition, the original writ
petitioner was affiliated
to the HNB University under the U.P. State University Act, 1973. For
the academic session 2013-14, the College applied to the Northern
Regional Committee of the NCTE to increase the intake seats of the
students. The opinion of the State Government was sought as per NCTE
Regulations, 2014. The State Government vide order/communication
dated 16.07.2013 sent its opinion and informed the Northern Regional
Committee of NCTE that about 13000 students are passing B.Ed. course
per annum against the need of 2500 teachers and therefore most of the
students passing B.Ed. course would be unemployed. Consequently, the
State Government opined that no fresh recognition be granted undertaking
B.Ed. course and also opined to cancel the recognition of respondent
No.1 – original writ petitioner – College. The communication/order dated
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
63
16.07.2013 of the State Government was the subject matter of writ petition
before the High Court.
2.1 The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed
and set aside order/communication dated 16.07.2013 of the State
Government by observing that the ground that the students after passing
B.Ed. course are unemployed and the State Government is not in a
position to grant employment to all of them and therefore institutions
should be closed is nothing except the arbitrary exercise on the part of
the State Government. The learned Single Judge also observed that on
the contrary, instead of closing down the institutions, the State Government
should promote institutions to come up in the State to provide education
and a welfare State is not supposed to close down the institutions. The
learned Single Judge directed the Northern Regional Committee to take
appropriate decision on the application of the original writ petitioner to
increase the seats of B.Ed. course. The judgment and order passed by
the learned Single Judge was the subject matter of special appeal before
the Division Bench. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division
Bench of the High Court has dismissed the special appeal and has
confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court dismissing the special appeal and confirming the judgment
and order passed by the learned Single Judge is the
subject matter of the
present appeal.
3. Shri Krishnam Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant – State of Uttarakhand has vehemently submitted that in
the facts and circumstances of the case both, the learned Single Judge
as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have seriously erred in
quashing and setting aside the communication/order dated 16.07.2013
holding the same as arbitrary.
3.1 It is submitted that a conscious policy decision was taken by
the State Government not to grant recognition to the new Colleges for
B.Ed. course and not to increase the intake capacity of the B.Ed. course
for valid reasons/grounds, the same was not required to be interfered
with by the High Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
3.2 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State that a conscious policy decision was taken by the
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. NALANDA COLLEGE OF
EDUCATION AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
64
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
State Government reflected in the communication/order dated 16.07.2013
taking into consideration the fact that against the need of 2500 teachers
per annum, approximately 13000 students would be passing out the B.Ed.
course, which ultimately would result into unemployment as the State
Government would not be in a position to offer employment to other
pass out students completing B.Ed. course, over and above 2500 students.
It is submitted that such a decision cannot be said to be in any way
arbitrary, as observed and held by the learned Single Judge, confirmed
by the Division Bench. In support of the above submission, reliance is
placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Vidharbha Sikshan
Vyawasthapak Mahasangh v. State of Maharashtra & Others,
reported in (1986) 4 SCC 361 (paragraph 6).
3.3 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State that even as per NCTE Regulations, before the
Regional Committee takes a decision on grant of recognition/increase in
the intake capacity, the opinion of the State Government is must, which
includes the detailed reasons or grounds with necessary statistics. It is
submitted that therefore the State Government was well within its rights
in submitting the opinion and/or taking a decision against the recognition,
which was with necessary statistics. On the requirement of submitting
the opinion by the State Government on whether to grant recognition
or
not which shall be with necessary statistics, reliance is placed on the
decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Gangadhar and
Another v. Union of India and others, 2009 SCC Online Bom.
17(paragraphs 36, 38, 41 & 42).
3.4 Making above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid
decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeal and quash and set
aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench as
well as that of the learned Single Judge.
4. Ms. Manisha T. Karia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the NCTE has supported the appellant – State of Uttarakhand. She has
also heavily relied upon Rule 7 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, under
which the State Government is required to furnish its recommendations
or comments to the Regional Committee before any final decision is
taken by the Regional Committee, which shall include to provide detailed
reasons or grounds thereof with necessary statistics, in case the State
Government opines not in favour of recognition.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
65
4.1 It is submitted that when a conscious decision was taken by
the State Government not to grant further recognition and/or not to
increase the intake capacity along with the detailed reasons or grounds
thereof with necessary statistics, considering the fact that against the
need/requirement of 2500 students per annum, approximately 13000
students shall pass out the B.Ed. course, which will render them
unemployed and the aforesaid can be said to be a valid ground, the High
Court has committed a serious error in quashing and setting aside such a
policy decision treating the same as arbitrary.
4.2 Learned counsel appearing for the NCTE has also heavily
relied upon the order dated 18.07.2018 passed by this Court in M.A. No.
1175 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 276/2012 in the case of Maa
Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
& Others, by which this Court has not interfered with the similar decision
of the State Government not to grant further recognition to the new
Colleges. She has also relied upon the observations made by this Court
in paragraph 16 in the case of State of Rajasthan v. LBS B.Ed. College
& Others, (2016) 16 SCC 110, in which this Court has observed that
under the NCTE Regulations, the State has a say, may be a limited one,
NCTE is required to take the opinion of the State Government into
consideration, for the State has a vital role to offer proper comments
supported by due reasoning. It is submitted that
therefore the NCTE
was required to take into consideration the views/opinion of the State
Government contained in the communication/order dated 16.07.2013. It
is submitted that therefore the High Court has committed a serious error
in quashing and setting aside the communication/order dated 16.07.2013
which was in the form of a policy decision not to grant further recognition
for B.Ed. course which was on a valid reasoning and the grounds, in
exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Though served, no body appears on behalf of Nalanda College
of Education.
6. We have heard Shri Krishnam Mishra, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant – the State of Uttarakhand and Ms. Manisha
T. Karia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NCTE. We have
gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court,
by which the High Court has quashed and set aside the policy decision
taken by the State of Uttarakhand, opining/deciding not to grant recognition
to the new B.Ed. colleges and consequently recommending the NCTE
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. NALANDA COLLEGE OF
EDUCATION AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
66
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
to take an appropriate decision on the application submitted by respondent
No.1 to increase the seats of B.Ed. course. It appears that the State
Government vide order/communication dated 16.07.2013 sent its opinion
and informed the NCTE that as about 13000 students are passing B.Ed.
course every year against the need of 2500 teachers and therefore most
the students passing B.Ed. course would be unemployed, it is
recommended not to grant any further recognition to the new B.Ed.
colleges. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set
aside the said communication/policy decision terming the same as
arbitrary. Therefore, the short question posed for consideration of this
Court is, “whether the policy decision taken by the State Government
can be said to be arbitrary which calls for interference of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?”
7. An identical question came to be considered by this Court in
the case of Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh (supra).
Before this Court, the challenge was the judgment of the Bombay High
Court whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging
the order of the Government of Maharashtra refusing to grant permission
to the member institutions of the original writ petitioner to hold the first
year classes in Diploma in Education. In the case before this Court, a
policy decision was taken by the State Government not to grant further
recommendation to start new D.Ed. colleges, inter alia, on the ground
that in Nagpur and Bhandara Districts, a large number of applicants
applied for starting new D.Ed. colleges from time to time. It was found
that the number of the new D.Ed. colleges started in Nagpur and
Bhandara Districts is proportionately much larger, about five times more
than the estimated increased need of the two districts and therefore it
was not desirable and feasible to permit the new D.Ed. colleges. It was
the case of the State that to permit admission of 3000 students every
year will result in a serious consequence of a large scale unemployment.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition which has been confirmed by
this Court by observing that the Government has taken the right decision
so as to save the young men from being exploited. This Court also
negatived the contention on behalf of the management that the refusal
to grant permission to hold D.Ed. classes will result in unemployment.
This Court approved the stand on behalf of the State that if the permission
is granted, there will be a large scale unemployment inasmuch as 3000
students will be admitted in the first year classes as against the requirement
of 616 students. Therefore, this Court has approved the policy decision
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
67
taken by the State not to grant further recognition to the new D.Ed.
colleges as there was no requirement of the new D.Ed. colleges looking
to the requirement of teachers.
8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decision, the High Court has committed a serious error in holding that
the decision not to recommend for the new B.Ed. colleges can be said to
be arbitrary. At this stage, it is required to be noted that under the provisions
of the NCTE Regulations, the State is well within its right to make suitable
recommendations. As per Rule 7(5) of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, on
receipt of the communication from the office of the Regional Committee
to the State, the State Government is required to send its recommendations
or comments to the Regional Committee. It further provides that in case
the State Government is not in favour of the recommendation, it shall
provide detailed reasons or grounds thereof with necessary statistics,
which shall be taken into consideration by the Regional Committee
concerned while disposing of the application. Therefore, when the State
Government is required to provide detailed reasons against grant of
recognition with necessary statistics, it includes the need and/or
requirement. Therefore, the State Government was well within its right
to recommend and/or opine that the State Government is not in favour
of granting further recognition to the new B.Ed. colleges as against the
need of annually 2500 teachers
approximately 13000 students would be
passing out every year, therefore, for the remaining students, there will
be unemployment. The aforesaid decision cannot be said to be arbitrary
as observed and held by the High Court. The need of the new colleges
looking to the requirement can be said to be a relevant consideration and
a decision not to recommend further recognition to the new B.Ed. colleges
on the need basis cannot be said to be arbitrary. Under the circumstances,
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated
10.09.2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Special
Appeal No. 144/2014, confirming the judgment and order dated
04.04.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2464/
2013, quashing the order/communication dated 16.07.2013 of the State
Government opining/deciding not to grant recognition to the new B.Ed.
colleges and directing the NCTE to take appropriate decision on the
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. NALANDA COLLEGE OF
EDUCATION AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
68
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
application preferred by respondent No.1 to increase the seats to B.Ed.
course, is hereby quashed and set aside. The instant appeal is allowed
accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal allowed.