SC upholds Uttarakhand 2013 decision denying approval of over 2,500 bed seats

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Uttarakhand government’s 2013 decision not to grant recognition to colleges running BEd courses on the grounds that there is only a requirement of 2,500 teachers per year against 13,000 students passing the course.

The state government stated that it took a conscious policy decision in its communication dated 16 July 2013 bearing in mind that with the need for 2,500 teachers annually, approximately 13,000 students would be taking the BEd course, which which would ultimately result in unemployment as the state government would not be in a position to provide employment to other students completing B.Ed. course, more than 2500 students.

A bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh set aside the order of the Uttarakhand High Court which had set aside the communication dated July 16, 2013 sent to the Northern Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).

The court said: “Given the reasons stated, the present appeal succeeds. The contested judgment and order dated September 10, 2018 issued by the Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of…, confirming the judgment and order dated April 4, 2014 issued by the single judge…, annulling the order/communication dated July 16, 2013 of the state government opining/deciding not to grant recognition to the new colleges of B .Ed and direct the NCTE to take appropriate decision on the application preferred by the respondent no.1 (university) for increasing the seats in B.Ed. is of course quashed and set aside.” The court referred to its 1986 judgment and said that applying the law laid down by this court in the decision, the high court has committed a grave error in holding that the decision not to recommend the new BEd colleges is you can say it is arbitrary.

“At this stage, it should be noted that in accordance with the provisions of the NCTE regulations, the State has the right to make appropriate recommendations. In accordance with rule 7 (5) of the NCTE Regulations 2014, on receiving the communication from the office of the Regional Committee in the State, the State Government shall send its recommendations or comments to the Regional Committee,” the bench said. .

He added that the provision further provides that in case the state government is not in favor of the recommendation, it has to provide the reasons or detailed reasons for the same with the necessary statistics, which must be taken into consideration by the regional committee concerned when resolving the request.

“Therefore, when the state government has to provide detailed reasons against the grant of recognition with necessary statistics, include the need and/or requirement. Therefore, the State Government was within its right to recommend and/or opine that the State Government is not in favor of granting additional recognition to the new B.Ed. Colleges, against the need for 2,500 teachers annually, approximately 13,000 students would pass out every year, so for the rest of the students, there will be unemployment,” he said.

The apex court added that the decision of the state government cannot be said to be arbitrary as observed and held by the high court.

“It can be said that the need for the new colleges to look into the requirement is a relevant consideration and the decision not to recommend additional recognition to the new B.Ed colleges on the basis of need cannot be said to is arbitrary. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the high court is unsustainable,” he said. The Uttarakhand government has moved the high court challenging the high court order passed in the case of a private university, which was denied permission to increase the seat for B.Ed courses.

The State had claimed that it took a conscious political decision not to grant recognition to the new B.Ed colleges. course and not increase the admission capacity of the B.Ed. for valid reasons and the high court was not required to intervene in it, in exercise of the powers of article 226 of the Constitution.

Leave a Comment

+1 631-259-7728
WhatsApp chat +1 631-259-7728