The state government submitted that a conscious policy decision was taken by it in its communication dated July 16, 2013 considering the fact that against the need of 2500 teachers per annum, approximately 13000 students would be passing out the B.Ed course, which ultimately would result into unemployment as the state government would not be in a position to offer employment to other pass out students completing B.Ed. course, over and above 2500 students.
A bench of justices M R Shah and MM Sundresh set aside the Uttarakhand High Court order which had quashed the communication dated July 16, 2013 sent to the Northern Regional Committee of National Council of Teachers Education (NCTE).
The bench said, “In view of the reasons stated, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated September 10, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in…, confirming the judgment and order dated April 4, 2014 passed by the Single Judge…, quashing the order/communication dated July 16, 2013 of the State Government opining/deciding not to grant recognition to the new B.Ed colleges and directing the NCTE to take appropriate decision on the application preferred by respondent No.1 (college) to increase the seats to B.Ed. course, is hereby quashed and set aside.”
The bench referred to its 1986 verdict and said that applying the law laid down by this court in the decision, 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. As per 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,” the bench said.
It added that the provision 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.
“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. Therefore, the state government was well within its right to recommend and/or opine that the state government is not in favour of granting further recognition to the new B.Ed. colleges as against the need of 2500 teachers annually approximately 13000 students would be passing out every year, therefore, for the remaining students, there will be unemployment,” it said.
The top court added that the decision of the state government cannot be said to be arbitrary as observed and held by the high court.
“The need of the new colleges looking at 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,” it said.
The Uttarakhand government has moved the top court challenging the high court order passed in the case of one private college, which was denied permission to increase the seat for B.Ed courses.
The State had contended that a conscious policy decision was taken by it to not to grant recognition to the new Colleges for B.Ed. course and not to increase the intake capacity of the B.Ed. course for valid reasons/grounds and the same was not required to be interfered with by the high court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. PTI MNL ZMN