8013 OF 2022 The State of Uttarakhand…Appellant Versus Nalanda College of Education and Others…
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/quashing-of-high-court-judgment-on-land-acquisition-proceedings/
Respondents J U D G M E N T M.R. 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.
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. 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.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/final-decision-and-disclosure-in-collegium-meetings/
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. 2 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that a conscious policy decision was taken by the 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.
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. 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.
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 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.
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?” An identical question came to be considered by this Court in the case of Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh (supra).
colleges, inter alia, on the ground that in Nagpur and Bhandara Districts, a large number of applicants applied for starting new D.Ed.
Therefore, this Court has approved the policy decision taken by the State not to grant further recognition to the new D.Ed. 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.
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. [M.M.
Case Title: THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. NALANDA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (2022 INSC 1195)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008013-008013 / 2022
