STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VS. NALANDA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND ORS. [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8013 OF 2022]

Bench	M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar
Date of Judgment	10 September, 2018
Court	Supreme Court of India
Case Type	Appeal
Appellant	State of Uttarakhand and others.
Respondent	Nalanda College of Education and others
Referred	National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) ActUttar Pradesh (U.P.) State University Act, 1973NCTE Regulations, 2014

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Nalanda College of Education in Dehradun, Uttarakhand, had obtained recognition from the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) to offer a one-year B.Ed. (Bachelor of Education) course with an annual intake of 100 students. The college was affiliated with H.N.B. Garhwal University under the U.P. State University Act, 1973.

2. For the academic session 2013-14, Nalanda College applied to the Northern Regional Committee of the NCTE to increase the intake capacity of students for its B.Ed. course. The State Government’s opinion was sought, as per the NCTE Regulations, 2014.

3. The State Government, in its communication/order dated 16.07.2013, informed the Northern Regional Committee of NCTE that approximately 13,000 students were graduating with B.Ed. degrees each year, while the actual demand for teachers in the region was only around 2,500. The State Government recommended against granting further recognition for new B.Ed. colleges and suggested canceling the recognition of Nalanda College.

4. A Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favor of Nalanda College, quashing and setting aside the State Government’s communication/order dated 16.07.2013. The Single Judge directed the NCTE to take a suitable decision on Nalanda College’s application to increase B.Ed. seats.

5. The State of Uttarakhand, dissatisfied with the Single Judge’s ruling, took the matter to a Division Bench of the High Court in an appeal. However, the Division Bench concurred with the Single Judge’s assessment, deeming the State Government’s decision as arbitrary, and subsequently dismissed the special appeal.

6. Subsequently, the State of Uttarakhand escalated the matter to the Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 8013 of 2022. They contended that the High Court’s intervention in the State Government’s policy determination was unwarranted.

7. The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) lent its support to the State of Uttarakhand’s arguments in the Supreme Court, underscoring the alignment of the State Government’s decision with NCTE Regulations. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Uttarakhand, thereby overturning the High Court’s judgment.

ISSUES

1. Is the State Government’s decision to restrict the establishment of new B.Ed. colleges and limit student admissions, citing concerns about graduate unemployment, an arbitrary action open to judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution?
2. How does the case evaluate the legality and reasonableness of the State’s policy in regulating teacher education institutions?

ARGUMENTS

The State of Uttarakhand, represented by its counsel, Shri Krishnam Mishra, put forth a robust argument. They contended that both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court had erred in setting aside the State Government’s decision to withhold recognition from new B.Ed. colleges and to limit student intake. The State Government had made a deliberate policy choice supported by sound rationale, and this decision should not have been subject to interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

The crux of the State Government’s decision rested on the anticipation of an oversupply of B.Ed. graduates, which would result in widespread unemployment. The government’s capacity to provide employment opportunities could only accommodate a fraction of these graduates. This policy determination was far from arbitrary and was aligned with the principles of a welfare state. Therefore, the High Court’s intervention was deemed unwarranted.

Ms. Manisha T. Karia, the counsel representing the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), echoed and supported the arguments made by the State of Uttarakhand. She also cited Rule 7 of the NCTE Regulations of 2014, which mandates that the State Government substantiate its recommendations with comprehensive justifications and relevant statistics when dissenting with NCTE’s recommendations.

NCTE asserted that the State Government’s decision adhered to these regulations and that the High Court’s interference was unjustified. The choice to withhold further recognition from new B.Ed. colleges was grounded in valid reasons, including the potential unemployment risk arising from an excess of B.Ed. graduates. The State Government’s recommendation was consistent with the NCTE regulations and was not arbitrary.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court rendered a verdict in favor of the State of Uttarakhand, overturning the High Court’s ruling. The Court determined that the State Government’s decision was not arbitrary but founded on legitimate grounds. The concern over a surplus of B.Ed. graduates, estimated at approximately 13,000 annually, was a significant issue, especially given that the region’s actual demand for teachers was only about 2,500. The government’s worry was that the excess of B.Ed. graduates would lead to widespread unemployment, as the government could only provide employment opportunities for a fraction of them.

The Supreme Court underscored that the State Government’s decision was well within its jurisdiction, considering the surplus of B.Ed. graduates and the potential ramifications of unemployment. The Court emphasized that the decision aligned with the welfare state’s interests and should not be construed as arbitrary. Additionally, the Court referenced the NCTE Regulations of 2014, which mandate that the State Government furnish recommendations supported by detailed reasoning and pertinent statistics when dissenting with NCTE recommendations. The State Government’s recommendations were in compliance with these regulations.

The central question before the Supreme Court pertained to whether the State Government’s policy decision could be deemed arbitrary and subject to judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The Court ruled that the decision was not arbitrary, as it was grounded in rational justifications and adhered to the NCTE Regulations. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and annulled the Division Bench’s ruling from the High Court.

REFERENCES

• https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=15756
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/196650808/

This Article is written by Rhythm Sharma of Aligarh Muslim University, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.