State Government is Well Within Its Right Under NCTE Act to Refuse to Open New B.Ed Colleges: Supreme Court

The bench noted that 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.

Supreme Court stated that “The State Government was well within its right to recommend and/or opine that the State Government is not in favor 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 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 basis of need cannot be said to be arbitrary. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.”

In view of the above, the bench allowed the appeal.

Case Title: The State of Uttarakhand v. Nalanda College of Education and Others

Bench: Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8013 OF 2022

Counsel for the Appellant: Shri Krishnam Mishra

Counsel for the respondent: Ms Manisha T Karia

Get Instant Legal Updates on Mobile- Download Law Trend APP Now


Supreme Court on Thursday stated that the State Government is Well Within Its Right Under NCTE Act to Refuse to Open New B.Ed Colleges.

The bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh was dealing with the appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the Uttarakhand HC by which the High Court has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge.

The Single Judge quashed the order 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 to take appropriate decision on the application of respondent No.1 to increase the seats to B.Ed. course.

In this case, Respondent No.1/Nalanda College of Education, Dehradun 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. After the recognition, the original writing petitioner was affiliated to the HNB University under the UP State University Act, 1973.

The State Government vide order/communication 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/College. The communication/order of the State Government was the subject matter of writ petition before the High Court.

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside order/communication 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 issue for consideration before the bench was:

Whether the order passed by the High Court needs interference or not?

Join LAW TREND WhatsAPP Group for Legal News Updates-Click to Join

The bench noted that 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.

Supreme Court stated that “The State Government was well within its right to recommend and/or opine that the State Government is not in favor 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 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 basis of need cannot be said to be arbitrary. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.”

In view of the above, the bench allowed the appeal.

Case Title: The State of Uttarakhand v. Nalanda College of Education and Others

Bench: Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8013 OF 2022

Counsel for the Appellant: Shri Krishnam Mishra

Counsel for the respondent: Ms Manisha T Karia

Get Instant Legal Updates on Mobile- Download Law Trend APP Now

Leave a Comment