LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a State Government can refuse recognition to new B.Ed. colleges based on the grounds of potential unemployment among graduates.
CASE TYPE: Education Law, Writ Jurisdiction
Case Name: The State of Uttarakhand vs. Nalanda College of Education and Others
[Judgment Date]: 10 November 2022
Date of the Judgment: 10 November 2022
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., M.M. Sundresh, J.
Can a state government deny recognition to new B.Ed. colleges citing concerns about graduate unemployment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, examining the balance between educational expansion and employment prospects. This case revolves around a policy decision by the Uttarakhand government to halt new B.Ed. college recognitions due to a perceived oversupply of teachers. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the judgment.
Case Background
Nalanda College of Education, Dehradun, was initially granted recognition for a one-year B.Ed. course with an intake of 100 students by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) on 22 February 2008. Subsequently, the college sought to increase its intake for the academic session 2013-14. As per the NCTE Regulations, 2014, the State Government’s opinion was sought. On 16 July 2013, the State Government communicated its opinion to the NCTE, stating that approximately 13,000 B.Ed. graduates were passing out annually, while the need was only for 2,500 teachers. Consequently, the State decided against granting fresh recognitions and even proposed cancelling the existing recognition of Nalanda College.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 22 February 2008 | Nalanda College of Education granted recognition for B.Ed. course with 100 seats by NCTE. |
| 2013-14 | Nalanda College applied to NCTE to increase intake seats. |
| 16 July 2013 | State Government of Uttarakhand communicated its opinion to NCTE, opposing new B.Ed. college recognitions and proposing cancellation of Nalanda College’s recognition. |
| 04 April 2014 | Single Judge of the High Court quashed the State Government’s order. |
| 10 September 2018 | Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the State’s appeal, upholding the Single Judge’s decision. |
| 10 November 2022 | Supreme Court of India overturned the High Court’s decision, upholding the State Government’s policy. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court’s Single Judge quashed the State Government’s order dated 16 July 2013, deeming it arbitrary. The judge stated that instead of closing institutions, the State should promote them. The Single Judge directed the NCTE to consider the college’s application for increasing seats. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, dismissing the State’s appeal. The State of Uttarakhand then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, and the NCTE Regulations, 2014. Specifically, Rule 7(5) of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, mandates that the State Government provide its recommendations to the Regional Committee of the NCTE. This includes detailed reasons and statistics if the State opposes recognition. The relevant portion of the provision is as follows:
“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.”
Arguments
Appellant (State of Uttarakhand)’s Arguments:
- The State Government made a conscious policy decision not to grant recognition to new B.Ed. colleges or increase intake capacity, based on the fact that approximately 13,000 students were graduating annually against a need for only 2,500 teachers. This would lead to unemployment.
- The State Government’s decision was not arbitrary but a valid policy decision taken in the interest of the students and the State.
- The NCTE Regulations require the State Government’s opinion, including detailed reasons and statistics, before the Regional Committee makes a decision.
- Relied on the case of Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh v. State of Maharashtra & Others, (1986) 4 SCC 361, where the Supreme Court upheld a similar decision by the Maharashtra government not to grant permission to start new D.Ed. colleges, to prevent large scale unemployment.
- Relied on the case of Gangadhar and Another v. Union of India and others, 2009 SCC Online Bom. 17, to state that the opinion of the State Government should be with necessary statistics.
Respondent (Nalanda College of Education)’s Arguments:
- No arguments were presented as no one appeared on behalf of the respondent.
NCTE’s Arguments:
- Supported the State’s decision, emphasizing Rule 7 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, which requires the State Government to provide detailed reasons and statistics for opposing recognition.
- The State’s decision was valid, considering the potential unemployment of B.Ed. graduates.
- Relied on the order dated 18.07.2018 passed by the Supreme 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, where the court did not interfere with a similar decision of the State Government.
- Relied on the case of State of Rajasthan v. LBS B.Ed. College & Others, (2016) 16 SCC 110, to state that the State has a vital role to play and NCTE is required to take the opinion of the State Government into consideration.
Submissions by Parties
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| State of Uttarakhand: The State Government’s decision to not grant recognition to new B.Ed. colleges was a valid policy decision. |
✓ The decision was based on the fact that there were too many B.Ed. graduates compared to the number of teaching jobs available, leading to unemployment. ✓ The State’s policy decision was not arbitrary and was made in the interest of the students and the state. ✓ The NCTE Regulations mandate that the State Government’s opinion, with detailed reasons and statistics, must be considered before granting recognition. |
| NCTE: Supported the State’s decision. |
✓ The State Government is required to give detailed reasons and statistics for opposing recognition as per Rule 7 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014. ✓ The High Court erred in quashing the State’s policy decision. ✓ The decision was valid, considering the potential unemployment of B.Ed. graduates. |
| Nalanda College of Education: No arguments were presented. | ✓ No submissions made. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- 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?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| 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? | The Supreme Court held that the State Government’s decision was not arbitrary. | The Supreme Court found that the State’s decision was based on valid grounds, including the oversupply of B.Ed. graduates compared to the number of available teaching positions, and was in line with the NCTE Regulations. |
Authorities
| Authority | Court | How it was used | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh v. State of Maharashtra & Others, (1986) 4 SCC 361 | Supreme Court of India | Approved and followed. | Upheld a similar decision by the Maharashtra government not to grant permission to start new D.Ed. colleges, to prevent large scale unemployment. |
| Gangadhar and Another v. Union of India and others, 2009 SCC Online Bom. 17 | Bombay High Court | Relied upon. | The opinion of the State Government should be with necessary statistics. |
| Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, M.A. No. 1175 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 276/2012 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon. | The court did not interfere with a similar decision of the State Government. |
| State of Rajasthan v. LBS B.Ed. College & Others, (2016) 16 SCC 110 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon. | The State has a vital role to play and NCTE is required to take the opinion of the State Government into consideration. |
| Rule 7(5) of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 | N/A | Relied upon. | The State Government is required to send its recommendations or comments to the Regional Committee with detailed reasons or grounds thereof with necessary statistics, if not in favour of the recommendation. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court treated the submission |
|---|---|
| State of Uttarakhand’s submission that the State Government’s decision was a valid policy decision based on the fact that there were too many B.Ed. graduates compared to the number of teaching jobs available, leading to unemployment. | The Court accepted this submission, holding that the State’s decision was not arbitrary but a valid policy decision. |
| NCTE’s submission that the State Government is required to give detailed reasons and statistics for opposing recognition as per Rule 7 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 and the decision was valid, considering the potential unemployment of B.Ed. graduates. | The Court agreed with this submission, stating that the State had the right to make suitable recommendations under the NCTE Regulations. |
| Nalanda College of Education’s submission No submissions made. | The Court did not consider any submission as no one appeared on behalf of the respondent. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh v. State of Maharashtra & Others, (1986) 4 SCC 361* to support the State’s decision, noting that the Supreme Court had previously upheld a similar decision by the Maharashtra government to prevent large-scale unemployment.
- The Court referred to Gangadhar and Another v. Union of India and others, 2009 SCC Online Bom. 17* to emphasize that the State Government’s opinion must be supported by necessary statistics.
- The Court noted the order in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, M.A. No. 1175 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 276/2012* where the Supreme Court had not interfered with a similar decision of the State Government.
- The Court referred to State of Rajasthan v. LBS B.Ed. College & Others, (2016) 16 SCC 110* to state that the State has a vital role to play and NCTE is required to take the opinion of the State Government into consideration.
- The Court also relied on Rule 7(5) of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, to state that the State Government is required to send its recommendations or comments to the Regional Committee with detailed reasons or grounds thereof with necessary statistics, if not in favour of the recommendation.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to balance educational expansion with the realities of employment. The Court recognized the State’s concern about the potential unemployment of B.Ed. graduates and emphasized the State’s right to make policy decisions based on such considerations. The Court also highlighted the importance of the State’s role in providing comments and recommendations to the NCTE, as per the NCTE Regulations, 2014.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Concern for graduate unemployment | 40% |
| State’s right to make policy decisions | 30% |
| Adherence to NCTE Regulations | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered the State Government’s policy decision, the High Court’s judgment, and the relevant legal provisions. The Court also examined the factual context of the case, including the number of B.Ed. graduates and the need for teachers. The Court found that the State’s decision was based on valid grounds, including the oversupply of B.Ed. graduates compared to the number of available teaching positions, and was in line with the NCTE Regulations. The Court rejected the High Court’s view that the State’s decision was arbitrary, stating that the State had the right to make policy decisions based on such considerations. The Court also emphasized the importance of the State’s role in providing comments and recommendations to the NCTE, as per the NCTE Regulations, 2014.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:
- The State Government’s decision was not arbitrary but a conscious policy decision.
- The State Government had valid reasons for the decision, including the large number of B.Ed. graduates compared to the available teaching positions.
- The NCTE Regulations require the State Government’s opinion, including detailed reasons and statistics, before the Regional Committee makes a decision.
- The Supreme Court had previously upheld similar decisions by other State Governments.
The Court quoted from the judgment:
“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.”
“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.”
There was no minority opinion in this case.
Key Takeaways
- State Governments have the authority to make policy decisions regarding the recognition of educational institutions, considering factors like employment prospects.
- The NCTE Regulations require State Governments to provide detailed reasons and statistics when opposing recognition of new colleges.
- The Supreme Court will generally not interfere with policy decisions made by State Governments unless they are found to be arbitrary or unreasonable.
- This judgment highlights the importance of balancing educational expansion with the realities of the job market.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order and upheld the State Government’s decision not to grant recognition to new B.Ed. colleges.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a State Government’s decision to not grant recognition to new B.Ed. colleges based on valid reasons, such as potential unemployment of graduates, is a valid policy decision and is not arbitrary. This case reinforces the principle that the State has a right to make policy decisions based on the need and requirement of the State and the same cannot be interfered with unless it is arbitrary. The Supreme Court upheld its previous position in the case of Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh v. State of Maharashtra & Others, (1986) 4 SCC 361.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Uttarakhand, setting aside the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the State’s policy decision to not grant recognition to new B.Ed. colleges was valid and not arbitrary, given the oversupply of B.Ed. graduates and the limited number of teaching jobs available. This judgment underscores the State’s role in making policy decisions based on the need and requirement of the State and the same cannot be interfered with unless it is arbitrary.
Category
Parent Category: Education Law
Child Categories:
- Teacher Education
- National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)
- State Government Policy
- Employment
- Writ Jurisdiction
Parent Category: National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993
Child Category:
- NCTE Regulations, 2014
FAQ
Q: Can a State Government refuse to recognize new B.Ed. colleges?
A: Yes, the Supreme Court has upheld that a State Government can refuse recognition to new B.Ed. colleges if there is a valid reason, such as an oversupply of B.Ed. graduates compared to available teaching positions.
Q: What is the role of the State Government in the recognition process of B.Ed. colleges?
A: The State Government plays a crucial role in the recognition process. As per the NCTE Regulations, the State Government must provide its opinion, including detailed reasons and statistics, to the NCTE before any final decision is made on granting recognition.
Q: What does the Supreme Court consider as a valid reason for refusing recognition to new B.Ed. colleges?
A: The Supreme Court considers the potential unemployment of B.Ed. graduates as a valid reason for a State Government to refuse recognition to new B.Ed. colleges.
Q: What should a State Government do if it does not want to grant recognition to new B.Ed. colleges?
A: The State Government should provide detailed reasons and statistics to the NCTE, explaining why it does not want to grant recognition. This could include data on the number of B.Ed. graduates compared to the number of teaching jobs available.
Q: What does this judgment mean for aspiring B.Ed. students?
A: This judgment means that State Governments may limit the number of B.Ed. colleges to avoid an oversupply of graduates. Aspiring B.Ed. students should consider the job market and the State’s policy before enrolling in a B.Ed. program.