1999 (3) TMI 671 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legislative Competence and Policy Decision of State Government.
2. Requirement of 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from the State Government.
3. Validity of Clauses (e) and (f) of Regulation 5 of the Central Regulations.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legislative Competence and Policy Decision of State Government:
The court examined whether the State Government had the authority to frame policies regarding the establishment of teacher training institutions. It was established that with the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, legislative power in respect of "Education" is now conferred exclusively on the Parliament and concurrently on Parliament and State's Legislature in respect of certain matters. The court noted that the Parliament has legislative competence to make laws in relation to teacher education, and any State Law repugnant to the Central Act becomes void under Article 254 of the Constitution of India. The court held that the State Government's policy forbidding the establishment of new teacher training institutions was ultra vires its powers and thus a nullity. The State Government's selective relaxation of this policy for extraneous reasons further destroyed the policy decision.

2. Requirement of 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from the State Government:
The court scrutinized the requirement of obtaining a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from the State Government as mandated by clauses (e) and (f) of Regulation 5 of the Central Regulations. It was observed that the Central Act did not assign any function to the State Government in relation to the grant of recognition to institutions intending to offer teacher education. The court found that the practice adopted by the National Council and the Regional Committee, which allowed the State Government to dictate the grant of recognition, was not supported by any statutory guidelines. The court highlighted that the State Government's refusal to grant NOC based on its policy was arbitrary and lacked statutory backing.

3. Validity of Clauses (e) and (f) of Regulation 5 of the Central Regulations:
The court examined whether the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) was within its statutory competence to prescribe obtaining an NOC from the State Government as a condition precedent for maintaining an application for recognition. It was determined that the National Council could only prescribe the form and manner of the application but not a substantive condition like obtaining an NOC, which effectively abdicated its statutory powers to the State Government. The court concluded that clauses (e) and (f) of Regulation 5 were ultra vires the powers of the National Council and thus struck them down.

Conclusion:
The court declared that the State Government's policy decision forbidding the establishment of teacher training institutions was ultra vires and nullified due to its infraction for extraneous reasons. Clauses (e) and (f) of Regulation 5 of the Central Regulations were also declared ultra vires the powers of the National Council. Consequently, the Regional Committee's decision to refuse recognition based on the non-grant of NOC by the State Government was held to be vitiated in law. The writ petition was allowed, directing the Regional Committee to reconsider the petitioner's application for recognition without insisting on obtaining an NOC from the State Government.