TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the cut-off dates prescribed in Regulation 5 of the 2007 Regulations, including the amended date fixed by the notification dated 1.7.2008, were arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the statutory scheme under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and the Regulations framed thereunder made the requirements of recognition, including consultation with the State Government or Union Territory Administration, mandatory.
Issue (i): Whether the cut-off dates prescribed in Regulation 5 of the 2007 Regulations, including the amended date fixed by the notification dated 1.7.2008, were arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The fixation of dates for submission, scrutiny, inspection, and communication of decisions was held to be an integral part of a time-bound regulatory scheme for grant of recognition. The prescribed dates enabled scrutiny of applications, removal of deficiencies, consultation with the State Government or Union Territory Administration, inspection of infrastructure, and timely final decision so that the academic session could be conducted effectively and students could meet the attendance requirement. The fact that some institutions were granted recognition after the cut-off date did not render the dates themselves unconstitutional. The governing test under Article 14 permits reasonable classification if the date has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, and a cut-off date is not invalid merely because it produces hard cases.
Conclusion: The cut-off dates were upheld as valid and not violative of Article 14; the challenge to the amended date fixed by the notification dated 1.7.2008 failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the statutory scheme under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and the Regulations framed thereunder made the requirements of recognition, including consultation with the State Government or Union Territory Administration, mandatory.
Analysis: The Act vests the regulatory power in the Council, but recognition is conditioned upon fulfillment of the statutory requirements and the regulatory norms framed under the Act. The consultation mechanism with the State Government or Union Territory Administration was treated as serving a substantive purpose, namely supplying relevant data on need, availability of trained teachers, and local educational requirements. The Court also reiterated that institutions cannot claim recognition unless they satisfy the conditions in the Act and the Regulations, and the time schedule prescribed by the regulatory framework must be strictly followed in future.
Conclusion: The requirements under the Act and the Regulations were held to be mandatory, and the Council was directed to ensure strict future compliance.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the legal validity of the cut-off dates and the mandatory nature of the statutory regime, but the operative relief already granted to the institutions was not disturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: A cut-off date fixed under a regulatory scheme is valid if it has a rational nexus with the object of the statute, and recognition cannot be granted unless the institution satisfies the mandatory conditions prescribed by the parent Act and the Regulations.
TaxTMI 
