Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Recognition for Unapproved BTC Courses: Nehru Gram Bharati University Case

Date of the Judgment: 24 October 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 985

Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J.

Can a university, declared as a ‘Deemed University’, bypass the mandatory norms and standards set by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) and the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) when offering a Basic Teacher’s Certificate (BTC) course? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving Nehru Gram Bharati University. The court examined whether the university could conduct its own examinations and grant valid BTC certificates without the necessary approvals. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Case Background

Rajiv Gandhi Post Graduate College, Kotwa, Jamunipur, Allahabad, was established by the Nehru Gram Bharati Society and was affiliated with Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur. The college applied to the NCTE for permission to start a two-year BTC course. The NCTE granted permission on August 16, 2005, subject to certain conditions. However, the college did not comply with these conditions.

On June 27, 2008, the Central Government declared the college a Deemed University, renamed Nehru Gram Bharati Deemed University, and de-affiliated it from Kanpur University. The Deemed University then requested the NCTE to change the institution’s name in the permission letter, which was granted on December 2, 2008. Subsequently, the Deemed University advertised admissions for the BTC course for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 academic sessions.

Simultaneously, the Deemed University sought recognition from the SCERT for its BTC course, requesting that its name be included in the list of approved institutions. The Director of SCERT rejected this request on July 14, 2010, stating that the matter did not concern SCERT. This rejection led to the filing of writ petitions by students who had enrolled in the BTC course.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Students admitted to the BTC course in the 2008-09 and 2009-10 academic sessions filed writ petitions in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, seeking recognition of their BTC certificates. The single judge dismissed these petitions, holding that the Deemed University was not authorized to act as an examining body for the BTC course without proper affiliation from the SCERT.

The students then filed intra-court appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench upheld the single judge’s decision, stating that the Deemed University had not complied with the conditions of the recognition letter issued by the NCTE and had failed to obtain necessary approvals from the SCERT. However, the Division Bench, considering the plight of the students, directed the Deemed University to refund the fees and pay Rs. 50,000/- to each student as compensation.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act) and the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act), along with the regulations framed under these acts.

Section 2(d) of the NCTE Act defines an ‘examining body’ as a university, agency, or authority to which an institution is affiliated for conducting examinations in teacher education qualifications.

Section 15(3) of the NCTE Act empowers the NCTE to grant permission to institutions for starting teacher education courses.

Section 22 of the UGC Act deals with the right to confer degrees. Sub-section (3) defines “degree” as any degree specified by the UGC with the Central Government’s approval.

The NCTE (Form of application for recognition, the time limit of submission of application, determination of norms and standards for recognition of teacher education programmes and permission to start new course or training) Regulations, 2002 and NCTE (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005 and NCTE Regulations of 2009 are also relevant to the case.

The Supreme Court also considered the notification dated June 27, 2008, which granted the status of Deemed University to the college, and the conditions stipulated therein. The court also considered the State Government’s policy decision dated September 21, 2006, which was struck down by the High Court, regarding private institutions running the BTC Course.

Arguments

Arguments of the Deemed University:

• The Deemed University argued that once it acquired the status of a Deemed University, it became an ‘examining body’ under Section 2(d) of the NCTE Act, and therefore, did not need to seek affiliation from any other agency.
• It contended that Section 22 of the UGC Act gives the right to a Deemed University to confer degrees, implying it becomes an examining body under the NCTE Act.
• The Deemed University argued that the NCTE Act is a complete code for teacher education, and universities conduct their own examinations without needing affiliation.
• It submitted that the NCTE Regulations of 2009 should not apply, as recognition was granted in 2005, and the 2002 Regulations, which did not require an NOC for institutions already running a B.Ed. course, should apply.
• The Deemed University claimed that it had substantially complied with the conditions of the recognition letter, arguing that the conditions were to be fulfilled before the commencement of the academic session, which was in 2008.
• It also argued that the policy of fulfilling conditions ceased to apply once it became a Deemed University and that the High Court had set aside the policy.
• The Deemed University also stated that it had appointed qualified faculty and deposited the required endowment fund.

Arguments of the Students:

• The students supported the Deemed University’s arguments, stating that the Deemed University was eligible to conduct its own examinations and grant degrees under Section 2(f) of the UGC Act.
• They argued that Section 17 of the NCTE Act protects their interests, and they should not be punished for the university’s actions.
• They also argued that they were entitled for recognition of their BTC certificate in law due to a subsequent development, namely, UP Gazette No. 210/79-5-2018-105-2014 dated February 08, 2018, the substituted Rule No. 8 inter alia provides that two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) is in accordance with National Council of Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure), Regulations or any training qualifications to be added by National Council for Teacher Education for the recruitment of teachers in Primary Education.

Arguments of the State of Uttar Pradesh:

• The State argued that the Deemed University could only offer courses that were being offered before it gained deemed status and that the BTC course was not a degree course recognized by the UGC.
• It stated that the Deemed University was required to conform to the norms of relevant statutory councils and could not offer degrees not specified by the UGC.
• The State contended that the Deemed University had failed to fulfill the conditions of the notification granting it Deemed University status.
• The State also argued that admissions had to be made as per the State Government’s policy, which the Deemed University had failed to do.
• The State supported the High Court’s decision that mere permission from the NCTE did not amount to automatic affiliation and that the institution needed to fulfill the norms prescribed by the NCTE.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the Deemed University, after being granted such status, had the right to conduct examinations for the BTC Course on its own, thereby becoming an ‘examining body’ for the said course.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors. [2006] 9 SCC 1:* The court relied on this case to affirm that the NCTE has the final authority in teacher education matters and that the State Government cannot refuse permission based on policy considerations.
• State of U.P. & Ors. v. Dau Dayal Mahila P.G. College & Ors.: The court acknowledged the reference by the appellant but did not find it relevant to the issue at hand.
• State of U.P. & Ors. v. Furqan Ali & Ors. 2011 (1) ADJ 480: The court acknowledged the reference by the appellant but did not find it relevant to the issue at hand.
• Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2013] 2 SCC 617: The court acknowledged the reference by the appellant but did not find it relevant to the issue at hand.
• State of Rajasthan v. LBS B.Ed. College & Ors. [2016] 16 SCC 110: The court acknowledged the reference by the appellant but did not find it relevant to the issue at hand.
• Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors. [2018] 1 SCC 468: The court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of complying with statutory conditions.
• Section 2(d), NCTE Act, 1993: The court considered the definition of ‘examining body’ but held that the Deemed University did not automatically qualify as one for the BTC course.
• Section 15(3), NCTE Act, 1993: The court noted that this section empowers the NCTE to grant permission for teacher education courses, but it does not exempt institutions from complying with other norms.
• Section 22, UGC Act, 1956: The court observed that this section pertains to degrees specified by the UGC, and the BTC course was not one of them.
• NCTE Regulations of 2002, 2005 and 2009: The court noted that the issue was not about the applicability of specific regulations but about the Deemed University’s non-compliance with the conditions set by the NCTE.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Non-compliance with NCTE Norms: The court emphasized that the Deemed University failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in the recognition letter issued by the NCTE. This was a critical factor in the court’s decision. The court noted that the Deemed University had admitted to non-compliance in its supplementary affidavit.
• BTC Course Not a UGC Degree: The court clarified that the BTC course is not a degree specified by the UGC and is governed by the NCTE Act. This distinction was crucial in determining that the Deemed University could not bypass NCTE regulations.
• Importance of Statutory Compliance: The court highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and conditions. It emphasized that mere permission from the NCTE does not amount to automatic affiliation and that the institution needed to fulfill all prescribed norms.
• Rejection of Equity Argument: While the court acknowledged the plight of the students, it held that it could not validate an unrecognised course solely based on equity. The court emphasized that legal compliance is paramount.
• Deemed University’s own actions: The court noted that the Deemed University itself had sought recognition from the SCERT, which was the examining body for the BTC course, indicating that it was aware of the need for such approval and that it could not act independently.

The sentiment analysis of the court’s reasoning shows a strong emphasis on legal compliance and the importance of adhering to the norms set by regulatory bodies. The court’s decision was driven by the need to ensure that educational institutions follow the prescribed procedures and that the quality of teacher education is maintained.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by legal considerations (70%), focusing on the interpretation of the NCTE Act and UGC Act, as well as the regulations framed under these acts. The factual aspects (30%), such as the Deemed University’s actions and the students’ plight, played a relatively smaller role in the decision-making process.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that the Deemed University was not authorized to conduct the BTC course and grant valid certificates for the academic sessions 2008-09 and 2009-10. The court emphasized that the Deemed University’s status did not exempt it from complying with the norms and standards prescribed by the NCTE and the SCERT.

The court rejected the Deemed University’s argument that it became an ‘examining body’ under the NCTE Act after being granted Deemed University status. It clarified that the right to confer degrees under the UGC Act applies only to degrees specified by the UGC, and the BTC course was not one of them. The court also noted that the Deemed University had failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in the recognition letter issued by the NCTE.

The court also rejected the students’ plea for recognition of their certificates, stating that it could not validate an unrecognised course solely on the grounds of equity. The court, however, upheld the High Court’s direction for the Deemed University to refund the fees and pay compensation to the students.

The Court observed:

“It is clear that the right which was given to the Deemed University to confer degrees pertain to those degrees which are specified by the UGC in the Official Gazette. Admittedly, BTC is not one of the degrees mentioned therein.”

<

“The Deemed University itself had applied to the SCERT for including its name in the list of the institutions which are permitted to run the BTC course. This clearly shows that the Deemed University was conscious of the fact that it cannot act as an examining body for the BTC course independently and it had to seek affiliation from the SCERT.”

“We are conscious of the fact that the students who were admitted in the BTC course have suffered. They have completed the course and have spent money and time in the same. However, we cannot validate a course which was not recognised by the competent authority. We are of the view that the High Court has rightly directed the Deemed University to refund the fees and pay compensation to the students.”

Outcome

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Deemed University, affirming the High Court’s judgment. The Deemed University was held liable for the consequences of running an unapproved BTC course. The court’s decision had the following implications:

• For the Deemed University: The university was prohibited from conducting examinations and granting BTC certificates for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 academic sessions. It was also required to refund the fees and pay compensation to the affected students.
• For the Students: The students’ BTC certificates were not recognized. However, they received a refund of their fees and compensation from the Deemed University.
• For the Education System: The judgment reinforced the importance of regulatory compliance and adherence to the norms set by the NCTE and SCERT. It emphasized that Deemed University status does not exempt institutions from following these norms, particularly in the field of teacher education.

Key Takeaways

The Nehru Gram Bharati University case provides several key takeaways:

• Regulatory Compliance is Mandatory: Educational institutions, including Deemed Universities, must adhere to the norms and standards set by regulatory bodies like the NCTE and SCERT.
• Deemed University Status Does Not Confer Automatic Exemptions: The status of a Deemed University does not exempt an institution from complying with the regulatory framework, especially in matters of teacher education.
• BTC Course is Not a UGC Degree: The Basic Teacher’s Certificate (BTC) course is not a degree specified by the UGC and is governed by the NCTE Act.
• Importance of Affiliation: Institutions offering teacher education courses must seek proper affiliation from the designated examining bodies, such as the SCERT, and cannot act independently.
• Equity Cannot Override Legal Compliance: While the courts are sympathetic to the plight of students, they cannot validate unrecognised courses solely based on equity. Legal compliance is paramount.
• Consequences of Non-Compliance: Institutions that fail to comply with regulatory norms face legal consequences, including the invalidation of courses and the obligation to compensate affected students.