Case Note & Summary
The matter involved two connected writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. Writ Petition No. 4769 of 2005 was filed by Shrinath Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, a public trust, seeking a direction to the State Government to grant permission to start a B.Ed. College at Kondhapuri, Shirur, Pune. The trust had applied for affiliation to SNDT Women’s University and obtained recognition from the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under Section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993, with an intake of 100 students for the academic year 2005-06. Despite this, the State Government refused to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) citing its policy decision of December 28, 2004, not to permit any new B.Ed. colleges for 2005-06 due to surplus teacher training capacity. The other petition, Writ Petition No. 6172 of 2005, was filed by the State of Maharashtra against several similar institutions, essentially raising the same issue. The trust had invested over Rs. 1.17 crore in land, building, and infrastructure. It had complied with all norms, and NCTE had conducted an inspection and granted recognition. The SNDT Women’s University did not recommend the case because of a Perspective Plan that limited new colleges to one per district for Pune. The State argued that under the Supreme Court decision in St. John Teachers Training Institute v. Karnataka Govt., (2003) 3 SCC 321, the State’s role in teacher education was vital and NOC from the State was a prerequisite for NCTE to consider an application. The State further pointed out that there were already 216 B.Ed. colleges with over 20,000 seats and that it had not issued any fresh NOC after the policy decision. Some earlier NOCs had been cancelled but restored by court orders. NCTE, on the other hand, contended that its recognition under Section 14 was final and that the State was bound to implement it, and that the State could not refuse permission once recognition had been granted. The trust argued that the State’s inaction was arbitrary and violated its rights. The High Court issued rule and heard the petitions together. The judgment, delivered orally by Justice F.I. Rebello, recorded the submissions and affidavits but the available text does not contain the final operative order. The issues before the court centered on the interplay between NCTE recognition and State NOC requirement, and the validity of the State’s blanket policy not to grant NOCs for new B.Ed. colleges.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Establishment of B.Ed. College - Requirement of State NOC - National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, Section 14 - Petitioner trust obtained recognition from NCTE but State Government refused NOC relying on a policy decision and surplus capacity. The petition raised the question whether State NOC is mandatory despite NCTE recognition (Paras 2-4) B) Administrative Law - Policy Decision - Surplus Capacity - Constitution of India, Article 226 - State Government argued that with 216 existing B.Ed. colleges and 20,180 seats, no further colleges needed; policy not to issue NOC was taken by Cabinet Sub-Committee. Petitioner claimed arbitrary action (Paras 4-5) C) Precedent - Interpretation of Supreme Court Judgment - St. John Teachers Training Institute v. Karnataka Govt., (2003) 3 SCC 321 - State relied on this case to assert that NOC is a necessary condition for NCTE recognition; NCTE maintained that once recognition granted, State must comply (Paras 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government can refuse to grant a No Objection Certificate for starting a B.Ed. College despite the institution having obtained recognition from the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under Section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993.
Law Points
- Recognition by NCTE under Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act
- 1993
- role of State Government in teacher education
- requirement of No Objection Certificate
- policy decision versus statutory recognition
- surplus capacity in teacher training
- interpretation of St. John Teachers Training Institute v. Karnataka Govt.
- (2003) 3 SCC 321
- writ jurisdiction under Article 226
