MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

p. 860 Copy page pinpoint

A (2) a proper syllabus designed to achieve a high level of education in the given span of time; (3) the student-teacher ratio; (4) the ratio between the students and the hospital B beds available to each student; (5) the calibre of the students admitted to the institution; (6) equipment and laboratory facilities, or hospital facilities for training in the case of medical colleges; c (7) adequate accommodation for the college and the attached hospital; and (8) the standard of examinations held including the manner in which the papers are set and examined and the clinical performance is judged."

50Copy pinpoint50. The principle of repugnancy and its effects were discussed by this Court in the case of S. Satyapal Reddy v. Government of A.P. (1994) 4 SCC 391, wherein it held as under: E "7. It is thus settled law that Parliament has exclusive power to make law with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I or concurrent power with the State Legislature in List Iii of the Vllth Schedule to the Constitution which shall prevail over the State law made by the State Legislature exercising the power on any of the entries in F List Ill. If the said law is inconsistent with or incompatible to occupy the same field, to that extent the State law stands superseded or becomes void. It is settled law that when Parliament and the Legislature derive that power under Article 246(2) and the entry in the Concurrent List, whether G prior or later to the law made by the State Legislature, Article 246(2) gives power, to legislate upon any subject enumerated in the Concurrent List, the law made by Parliament g~ts paramountcy over the law made by the State Legislature unless the State law is reserved for H

MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 861 STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] consideration of the President and receives his assent. A Whether there is an apparent repugnance or conflict between Central and State laws occupying the same field and cannot operate harmoniously in each case the court has to examine whether the provisions occupy the same field with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the B Concurrent List and whether there exists repugnancy between the two laws. Article 254 lays emphasis on the words ''with respect to that matter''. Repugnancy arises when both the laws are fully inconsistent or are absolutely irreconcilable and when it is impossible to obey one without c disobeying the other. The repugnancy would arise when conflicting results are produced when both the statutes covering the same field are applied to a given set of facts. But the court has to make every attempt to reconcile the provisions of the apparently conflicting laws and court 0 would endeavour to give harmonious construction. The purpose to determine inconsistency is to ascertain the intention of Parliament which would be gathered from a consideration of the entire field occupied by the law. The proper test would be whether effect can be given to the provisions of both the laws or whether both the laws can stand together. Section 213 itself made the distinction of the powers exercisable by the State Government and the Central Government in working the provisions of the Act. It is the State Government that operates the provisions of the Act through its officers. Therefore, sub-section (1) of Section 213 gives power to the State Government to create Transport Department and to appoint officers, as it thinks fit. Sub-section (4) thereof also preserves the power. By necessary implication, it also preserves the power to prescribe higher qualification for appointment of officers of the State Government to man the Motor Vehicles Department. What was done by the Central Government was only the prescription of minimum qualifications, leaving the field open to the State Government concerned to prescribe if it finds necessary, higher qualifications. The H

p. 862 Copy page pinpoint

A Governor has been given power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, subject to any law made by the State Legislature, to make rules regulating the recruitment which includes prescription of qualifications for appointment to an office or post under the State. Since the B Transport Department under the Act is constituted by the State Government and the officers appointed to those posts belong to the State service, while appointing its own officers, the State Government as a necessary adjunct is entitled to prescribe qualifications for recruitment or c conditions of service. But while so prescribing, the State Government may accept the qualifications or prescribe higher qualification but in no case prescribe any qualification less than the qualifications prescribed by the Central Government under sub-section (4) of Section 213 of the Act. In the latter event, i.e., prescribing lesser qualifications, both the rules cannot operate without colliding with each other. When the rules made by the Central Government under Section 213(4) and the statutory rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are construed harmoniously, there is no incompatibility or inconsistency in the operation of both the rules to appoint fit persons to the posts or class of officers of the State Government vis-a-vis the qualifications prescribed by the Central Government under sub-section (4) of Section 213 of the Act." F

51Copy pinpoint51. In the case of Jaya Gokul Educational Trust (supra), the Court, while referring to the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute (supra), took the view that where the provisions of the State Act overlap and G are in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act in various areas, the matters which are specifically covered under the Central Act cannot be undermined and they shall prevail. The court further stated that a provision in the Universities Act requiring the University to obtain merely the views of the State Government could not be characterized as requiring 'approval' H

MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 863 STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.) of the State Government. If the University Statute could be so interpreted, such a provision requiring approval of the State Government would be repugnant to the provisions of Section 1O(k) of the AICTE Act and would, therefore, be void.

52Copy pinpoint52. In the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (supra), the Court, while dealing with the provisions of the Act with which we are concerned in the present case, held that field of teachers' education and matters connected therewith stood fully and completely occupied by the Act and hence the State legislature could not encroach upon that field. In the case of Engineering Kamgar Union v. Electro C Steels Castings Ltd. and Anr. ((2004) 6 SCC 36), the Court was dealing with a direct conflict between the two provisions of different Acts and stated that direct conflict arises not only where the provisions of one of the Acts has to be disobeyed if the other is followed but also where both laws lead to different D . results. Extending the doctrine of repugnancy to that situation, the Court held in paragraph 18 of the judgment that the Central Law shall prevail. The said paragraph reads as under: - "18. In terms of clause (2) of Article 254 of the Constitution of India where a law made by the legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provisions repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to the matters, then the law so made by the legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for consideration of the President and has received its assent, prevail in that State. It is not in dispute that the 1983 Act has received the assent of the President of India and, thus, would prevail over any parliamentar~· law governing the same field." G

53Copy pinpoint53. From the above consistent view of this Court it is clear that wherever the field is covered by the Parliamentary law in terms of List I and List Ill, the law made by the State Legislature would, to the extent of repugnancy, be void. Of course, there has to be a direct conflict between the laws. The direct conflict H

p. 864 Copy page pinpoint

A is not necessarily to be restricted to the obedience of one resulting in disobedience of other but even where the result of one would be in conflict with the other. It is difficult to state any one principle that would uniformly be applicable to all cases of repugnancy. It will have to be seen in the facts of each case while keeping in mind the laws which are in conflict with each other. Where the field is occupied by the Centre, subject to the exceptions stated in Article 254, the State law would be void.

54Copy pinpoint54. In the present case, we are concerned with the provisions of the NCTE Act which is a Central legislation referable to Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. Thus, no law enacted by the State, which is in conflict with the Central Law, can be permitted to be operative.

55Copy pinpoint55. Now, let us examine the conflict that arises in the present cases. In terms of the provisions of the Act, the Regional Committee is required to entertain the application, consider State opinion, cause inspection to be conducted by an expert team and then to grant or refuse recognition in terms of the provisions of the Act. Once a recognition is granted and before an Institution can be permitted to commence the course, it is required to take affiliation from the affiliating body, which is the University.

56Copy pinpoint56. Thus, grant of recognition or affiliation to an institute is a condition precedent to running of the courses by the Institute. If either of them is not granted to the institute, it would not be in a position to commence the relevant academic courses. There is a possibility of some conflict between a University Act or Ordinance relating to affiliation with the provisions of the Central Act. In such cases, the matter is squarely answered in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidya/aya (supra) where the Court stated that after coming into operation of the Central Act, the operation of the University Act would be deemed to have become unenforceable in case of technical colleges. It also observed that provision of the Universities Act regarding affiliation of

MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 865 STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] technical colleges and conditions for grant of continuation of P such affiliation by university would remain operative but the conditions that are prescribed by the university for grant and continuation of affiliation must be in conformity with the norms and guidelines prescribed by the NCTE.

57Copy pinpoint57. Under Section 14 and particularly in terms of Section 8 14(3)(a) of the Act, the NCTE is required to grant or refuse recognition to an institute. It has been empowered to impose such conditions as it may consider fit and proper keeping in view the legislative intent and object in mind. In terms of Section 14(6) of the Act, the examining body shall grant affiliation to the institute where recognition has been granted. In other words, granting recognition is the basic requirement for grant of affiliation. It cannot be said that affiliation is insignificant or a mere formality on the part of the examining body. It is the requirement of law that affiliation should be granted by the affiliating body in accordance with the prescribed procedure and upon proper application of mind. Recognition and affiliation are expressions of distinct meaning and consequences. In the case of Chairman, Bhartia Education Society v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. E [(2011) 4 SCC 527], this Court held that the purpose of recognition and affiliation is different. In the context of the Act, affiliation enables and permits an institution to send its students to participate in public examinations conducted by the examining body and secure the qualification in the nature of degrees, diploma and certificates. On the other hand, recognition is the licence to the institution to offer a course or training in teaching education. The Court also emphasised that the affiliating body/examining body does not have any discretion to refuse affiliation with reference to any of the factors which have been considered by the NCTE while granting recognition.

58Copy pinpoint58. The examining body can impose conditions in relation to its own requirements. These aspects are (a) eligibility of students for admission; (b) conduct of examinations; (c) the manner in which the prescribed courses should be completed; H

p. 866 Copy page pinpoint

A and (d) to see that the conditions imposed by the NCTE are complied with. Despite the fact that recognition itself covers the larger precepts of affiliation, still the affiliating body is not to grant affiliation automatically but must exercise its discretion fairly and transparently while ensuring that conditions of the law B of the university and the functions of the affiliating body should be complementary to the recognition of NCTE and ought not to be in derogation thereto.

59Copy pinpoint59. In the case of St. John Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education C [(2003) 3 SCC 321], this Court attempted to strike a balance between the role played by the NCTE, on the one hand and affiliating body and State Government, on the other. Once the affiliating body acts within the fundamentals of Section 14 of the Act, possibility of a conflict can always be avoided. D

60Copy pinpoint60. In these appeals, we are concerned with the colleges which are affiliated to different universities. Some of them are affiliated to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University, Faizabad, some to Dr. Bhimarao Ambedkar University, Agra E while others to the University of Meerut. All these universities have been created by statutes and have their own ordinances. The Universities Act is the parent statute under which all these universities have been constituted. Under Section 2(20) of the Universities Act, 'University' means an existing University or a new University established after the commencement of this Act F in terms of Section 4 of this Act. Section 4 empowers the State Government to establish a university in the manner prescribed by its notification in the Official Gazette. The provision provides for establishment of different universities and which had, in fact, been already established. Chapter VII of the Universities Act G deals with Affiliation and Recognition. Section 37(1) states that the section shall apply to different universities under which all the universities which are respondent in these appeals are covered. In terms of Section 37(2), the Executive Council may, with the previous sanction of the State Government, admit any college which fulfils such conditions of affiliation as may be

MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 867 STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

prescribed, to the privileges of affiliation or enlarge the privileges of any college already affiliated or subject to the provisions of sub-section (8), withdraw or curtail any such privilege. It has further been provided that a college should substantially fulfill the conditions of affiliation in the opinion of the State Government, for it to sanction grant of affiliation to the college. In terms of Section 37(6), the Executive Council of the university shall cause every affiliated college to be inspected from time to time at intervals not exceeding five years. Section 37(8) states that the privileges of affiliation of a college which fails to comply with any direction of the c Executive Council under sub-section (7) or to fulfill the condition of affiliation may, after obtaining the report from management of the college and with previous sanction of the chancellor, be withdrawn or curtailed by the Executive Council in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes. In terms of Section 37(10), D a college which has been affiliated is entitled to continue the course of study for which the admissions have already taken place. To give an example, under the statute of the Meerut University, affiliation of new colleges is dealt with under statute 13.02 to 13.10 of Chapter XIII. This requires that every application for affiliation of a college has to be made so as to reach the Registrar in less than 12 months before the commencement of the course and before an application is considered by the Executive Council, the Vice-Chancellor must be satisfied that there is due compliance with the provisions of statutes 3.05, 13.06 and 13.07. Besides, it requires the conditions like adequate financial resources, suitable and sufficient building, adequate library, two hectares of land, facilities for recreation of students, etc. to be fulfilled. The constitution of the Management of every college has also been provided. G

61Copy pinpoint61. The fields which are sought to be covered under the provisions of Section 37 of the Universities Act and the Statutes of various universities are clearly common to the aspects which are squarely covered by the specific language under the Act. H

p. 868 Copy page pinpoint

A That being so, all State laws in regard to affiliation in so far as they are covered by the Act must give way to the operation of the provisions of the Act. To put it simply, the requirements which have been examined and the conditions which have been imposed by the NCTE shall prevail and cannot be altered, re- B examined or infringed under the garb of the State Law. The affiliating/examining body and the State Government must abide by the proficiency and command of the NCTE's directions. To give an example, existence of building, library, qualified staff, financial stability of the institution, c accommodation, etc. are the subjects which are specifically covered under Section 14(3)(b) of the Act. Thus, they would not be open to re-examination by the State and the University. If the recognition itself was conditional and those conditions have not been satisfied, in such circumstances, within the ambit 0 and scope of Sections 46 and 16 of the Act, the affiliating body may not give affiliation and inform the NCTE forthwith of the shortcomings and non-compliance of the conditions. In such situation, both the Central and the State body should act in tandem and, with due coordination, come to a final conclusion as to the steps which are required to be taken in regard to both recognition and affiliation. But certainly, the State Government and the University cannot act in derogation to the NCTE.

62Copy pinpoint62. Now, we may deal with another aspect of this very facet of the case. It is a very pertinent issue as to what the role of the State should be after the affiliation is granted by the affiliating body. We have already discussed that the State opinion, as contemplated under Section 37 of the University Act, to the extent it admits to overreach, is reconcilable and its results are not in its orientation to the directives of the NCTE G are void and inoperative to the extent they can be resolved in which case clear precedence is to be given to the directives of the NCTE during such resolution. The opinion of the State, therefore, has to be read and construed to mean that it would keep the factors determined by the NCTE intact and then examine the matter for grant of affiliation. The role of the State

MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 869 STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

Government is minimised at this stage which, in fact, is a second stage. It should primarily be for the University to determine the grant or refusal of affiliation and role of the State should be bare, minimum non-interfering and non-infringjng.

63Copy pinpoint63. It is on record and the Regulations framed under the Act clearly show that upon receiving an application for recommendation, the NCTE shall send a copy of the application with its letter inviting recommendations/comments of the State Government on all aspects within a period of 30 days. To such, application, the State is expected to respond with its complete comments within a period of 60 days. In other words, the opinion of the State on all matters that may concern it in any of the specified fields are called for. This is the stage where the State and its Department should play a vital role. They must take all precautions to offer proper comments supported by due reasoning. Once these comments are sent and the State D Government gives its opinion which is considered by the NCTE and examined in conjunction with the report of the experts, it may grant or refuse recognition. Once it grants recognition, then such grant attains supremacy viz-a-viz the State Government as well as the affiliating body. Normally, these questions cannot be re-agitated at the time of grant of affiliation. Once the University conducts inspection in terms of its Statutes or Act, without offending the provisions of the Act and conditions of recognition, then the opinion of the State Government at the second stage is a mere formality unless there was a drastic and unacceptable mistake or the entire process was vitiated by fraud or there was patently eminent danger to life of the students working in the school because of non-compliance of a substantive condition imposed by either of the bodies. In the normal circumstances, the role of the State is a very formal one and the State is not expected to obstruct the commencement of admission process and academic courses once recognition is granted and affiliation is found to be acceptable.

64Copy pinpoint64. In the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (supra), the view of this Court was that the State H

p. 870 Copy page pinpoint

A Government has no role whatsoever. However, in the case of Bhartia Education Society (supra), it was stated that the role of the State Government was limited to the manner of admission, eligibility criteria, etc. without interfering with the conditions of recognition prescribed by the NCTE. The exercise B of discretion by the State Government and affiliating body has to be within the framework of the Act, the Regulations and conditions of recognition. Even in St. John Teachers Training Institute (supra), the Court stated that the State Government or the Union Territory has to necessarily confine itself to the c guidelines issued by the NCTE while considering application for grant of 'No Objection Certificate'. Minimization of the role of the State at the second stage can also be justified on the ground that affiliation primarily is a subject matter of the University which is responsible for admission of the students laying down the criteria thereof, holding of examinations and 0 implementation of the prescribed courses while maintaining the standards of education as prescribed.

65Copy pinpoint65. Lastly, the question which is required to be discussed in light of the facts of the present cases is adherence to the E Schedule. Once the relevant Schedules have been prescribed · under the Regulations or under the Judge made iaw, none, whosoever it be, is entitled to carve out exceptions to the prescribed Schedule. Adherence to the Schedule is the essence of granting admission in a fair and transparent manner as well as to maintain the standards of education. The purpose of providing a time schedule is to ensure that all concerned authorities act within the stipulated time. Where, on the one hand, it places an obligation upon the authorities to act according to the Schedule, there it also provides complete clarity to other stakeholders as to when their application would either be accepted and/or rejected and what will be the time duration for it to be processed at different quarters. It also gives clear understanding to the students for whose benefit the entire process is set up as to when their examinations would be held, when results would be declared and when they are expected to take admission to different colleges in order of merit

MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 871 STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

obtained by them in the entrance examinations or other processes for the purposes of subject and college preference.

66Copy pinpoint66. We are constrained to reiterate with emphasis at our command that the prescribed schedules under the Regulations and the judgments must be strictly adhered to without exceptions. None in the hierarchy of the State Government, 8 University, NCTE or any other authority or body involved in this process can breach the Schedule for any direct or indirect reason. Anybody who is found to be defaulting in this behalf is bound to render himself or herself liable for initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts C Act, 1971 as well as for a disciplinary action in accordance with the orders of the Court. In the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust & Ors. V. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors. (Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 26086 of 2012), decided on the same date, this Court held as under : D "29 ... Time schedule is one such condition specifically prescribed fer admission to the colleges. Adherence to admission schedule is again a subject which requires strict conformity by all concerned, without exception. Reference E in this regard can be made to Ranjan Purohit and Ors. V. Rajasthan University of Health Science and Ors. ((2012) 8 SCALE 71] at this stage, in addition to the judgment of this Court in the case of Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh, [(2002) 7 SCC 258]." F

67Copy pinpoint67. Undoubtedly, adherence to Schedule achieves the object of the Act and its various aspects. Disobedience results in unfair admissions, not commencing the courses within the stipulated time and causing serious prejudice to the students of higher merit resulting in defeating the rule of merit. G

68Copy pinpoint68. We may very clearly state here that we adopt and reiterate the Schedule stated by this Court in the case of College of Professional Education (supra) in relation to admission as well as recognition and affiliation. This obviously includes the commencement of the courses in time. However, H

p. 872 Copy page pinpoint

A in order to avoid the possibility of any ambiguity, we propose to state the schedule for recognition and affiliation in terms of the NCTE Regulation~ 2009 and the judgment of this Court in the case of College of Professional Education (supra) :

69Copy pinpoint69. The process for grant of recognition, affiliation and thereby sanctioning of commencement of the courses in terms of the Regulations and the orders of this Court gives an outer period of approximately 270 days, i.e. 9 months, from 1st September to 1Oth May of the year immediately preceding the concerned academic year. Thus, for the entire process to be within this framework, it must be completed within the afore- stated period. The process inter alia includes various steps including comments of the State, inspection of the institution and compliance of the various conditions afore-noted in the order of recognition and affiliation by the affiliating body.

70Copy pinpoint70. There appear to be some over-lapping periods and even contradictions between the dates and periods st~ted under the regulations inter se anct ev:m with reference to the judgments of this Gm.iil prescribing the Schedule. For example in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of College of E Professional Education (supra), the last date for grant of affiliation is 10th May of the concerned year, but as per Regulation 5.5 of the NCTE Regulations, 2009, the last date for grant of recognition is 15th May of the relevant year. Similarly, there is an overlap between the period specified in F Regulation 7.1 and that under Regulation 7.2. Such overlapping is likely to cause some confusion in the mind of the implementing authority as well as the applicant. Thus, it is necessary for this Court to put to rest these avoidable events and unnecessary controversies. Compelled with these G circumstances and to ensure that there exists no ambiguity, uncertainty and confusion, we direct and prescribe the following schedule upon a cumulative reading of the Regulations and. judgments of this Court in relation to recognition and affiliation.

MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 873 STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] Schedule A

1. Submission of applications 1st September to 1st for for recognition in terms of October of the year Regulation 5.4 relevant immediately preceding the academic year B

2. Communication of Within 45 days from the deficiencies, shortcomings date of receipt of the or any other discrepancy in applications the application submitted by the applicant to the applicant in terms of c Regulation 7.1

3. Removal of such Within 60 days from the deficiencies by the date of receipt of applicant communication D

4. Forwarding of copy of the Within 90 days from the application to the State date of receipt of the Government/UT application Administration for its E recommendations/ comments in terms of Regulation 7.2

5. Recommendations/ Within 30 days from the comments of the State date of issue of letter to it. F Government/UT Administration to be submitted to the Regional Committee under Regulation 7 .3 G

6. If recommendations/ Within seven days from the comments are not received date of expiry of the period within 30 days, the of 30 days. Regional Committee shall send to the State H

p. 874 Copy page pinpoint

A GovemmenVUT Administration a reminder letter for submission of the recommendations/ comments. B

7. State Government/UT Within 15 days from the date Administration shall furnish of receipt of such reminder the recommendations/ letter comments c 8. Intimation regarding Within 10 days from final inspection by the Regional scrutiny of the application. Committee to the applicant under Regulation 7(4)

9. Report by the Inspection 20 days thereafter D Committee under Regulation 7(5)

10. Letter of intent to the 1Oth of February of the institution with respect to succeeding year/relevant grant or refusal of year recognition in terms of Regulation 7.9

11. Time to comply with certain 20 days from the date of specified conditions, in issuance of letter of intent terms of Regulation 7(10) and 7(11)

12. Issuance of formal order of By 3rd March of each year recognition

G 13. Last date for submitting By 10th March of each year proposal for affiliation

14. Forwarding of proposal by By 10th March of each year the University to the State GovernmenVUT A H

MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 875 STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] dministration after A inspection by expert team

15. Comments to be submitted By 10th March of each year by the State Government/ UT Administration, if any B

16. Final date for issuance/ By 10th March of each year grant of affiliation for the relevant academic year • All notices/orders/requirements/letters in terms of the above schedule or under the provisions of the C Act or terms and conditions of already granted recognition/affiliation shall be sent by the authority concerned by Speed Postle-mail on the address given in the application for correspondence etc. and shall be posted on the website of the concerned o Authority/Committee/Council/ Government. The recognition and affiliation granted as per above schedule shall be applicable for the current academic year. For example recognition granted upto 3rd March, 2013 and affiliation granted upto E 1Oth May, 2013 shall be effective for the academic year 2013-2014 i.e. the courses starting from 1st April, 2013. For the academic year 2013-2014, no recognition shall be issued after 3rd March, 2013 and no affiliation shall be granted after 1Oth F May, 2013. Any affiliation or recognition granted after the above cut-off dates shall only be valid for the academic year 2014-2015. We make it clear that no Authority/person/ Council/ Committee shall be entitled to vary the schedule for G any reason whatsoever. Any non-compliance shall amount to violating the orders of the Court.

71Copy pinpoint71. In all the appeals and petitions before us, the basic issue is whether the university and the State Government were H

p. 876 Copy page pinpoint

A justified in rejecting the application or not granting application for affiliation on the ground that there was a cut-off date and/or the conditions of recommendation/affiliation had not been satisfied. In some cases, serious disputes have been raised with regard to the fulfillment of the conditions of recognition and/ 8 or affiliation. As far as the reason in relation to cut-off date is concerned, we cannot find any fault with the view taken by the authorities concerned. 10th of May has been provided as the cut-off date, after which no affiliation for the current academic year would be granted. This, being the law stated by this Court, C is binding on all concerned, including any authority. The authorities have rightly acted in declining to entertain and/or refusing affiliation to the institutions being beyond the cut-off date. Adherence to the schedule was the obligation of the authorities and the institutions cannot raise any grievance in that regard. The said time schedule must become operative 0 in all respects and nobody should be permitted to carve exceptions to this mandatory direction.

72Copy pinpoint72. Coming to the cases where the plea has been taken by the respondents University/State that conditions of affiliation have not been satisfied. It is not for this Court to examine the compliance or breach of conditions and their extent in the special leave petitions or writ petitions as the case may be. In fact, the judgment of the High Court has been brought to our notice where it has been recorded that conditions in some cases have been complied with, but still the State has taken the stand that besides cut-off date, other conditions are also not satisfied. One of the examples relates to the matter where the State/affiliating body has found that even the building's boundary wall was not complete and the fire equipments have not been installed as prescribed. However, these were specifically disputed by the petitioners/appellants who contended that all conditions had been satisfied. Thus, these are disputes of very serious nature. They will squarely fall beyond the ambit of appellate or writ jurisdiction by this Court. This is for the specialised bodies to examine the matters upon H

MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 877 STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] physical verification and to proceed with the application of the A institute in accordance with law.

73Copy pinpoint73. We may mention that firstly vide order dated 26th July, 2012 a stay in regard to counseling and admission was granted by this Court. However, this order was varied again by order dated 27th September, 2012 which reads as under:- B "By our interim order dated 26th July, 2012, we had, while taking note of the fact that counselling for vacant seats in B.Ed. Course for different private colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh was scheduled from 27th July, 2012 to 26th August, 2012, directed that the counselling will not be held for the time being. On 25th September, 2012, after hearing writ petition and all other connected matters, we had called upon the Universities to file an affidavit on the issue whether the students admitted to the institution which had already been affiliated will be able to complete the course during the academic session as per the Regulations of the NCTE if the interim order is vacated or modified now. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders passed on 25th E September, 2012, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 - Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh University and it is inter alia stated therein that if the vacancies in the seats in different private colleges which are affiliated are filled up and students are admitted, the F University will still be in a position to complete the mandatory requirements of 200 days as per the NCTE norms and Regulations, since the examinatio11s for the last academic session 2011-12 have commenced from the second week of September, 2012 only. Along with the G affidavit, a chart has been annexed to indicate that there were 13,435 vacant seats in self-financing colleges which are affiliated to the concerned Universities comprising 2762 vacant seats in the Arts and Commerce Stream and 10,673 seats in Science and Agriculture. H

p. 878 Copy page pinpoint

A Considering the aforesaid facts stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, we vacate the interim and permit the authorities to fill up the vacant seats in B.Ed. Course in different self-financing colleges which have already been granted affiliation as well as Government B and Goyernment aided Colleges. But we make it clear that the authorities will ensure that the students are admitted strictly as per the procedure that has been already notified on the basis of merit in the entrance examination and fresh counselling will take place after a fresh advertisement in the newspapers having circulation c in the State of Uttar Pradesh and in the internet. The authorities will also ensure that the students admitted complete the mandatory period of 200 days' course in the B.Ed. as per norms of the NCTE. D The matters are reserved for judgment."

74Copy pinpoint74. In furtherance to the above order, we are informed that the admissions had been granted in the recognised and affiliated institutes. In the colleges which were neither recognised nor affiliated, whether or not included in the list of counseling, no admissions were given to the students. The petitioner/appellant colleges fall in that category. We do not propose to grant any relief to them in the present writ petitions and appeals except issuance o'f certain directions. Consequently and in view of our above discussion, we dispose of all these appeals/writ petitions with the following directions:- A) The schedule stated in the case of College of Professional Education {supra) and in this judgment in relation to admissions, recognition, affiliation and commencement of courses shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned including the NCTE, the State Government and the University/ examining body. B) In the event of disobedience of schedule and/or any attempt to overreach or circumvent the judgment of H

MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 879 STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] this Court and the directions contained herein, the A concerned person shall render himself or herself liable for proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and even for departmental disciplinary action in accordance with law. C) We hereby direct the NCTE/ State GovernmenV B Examining or affiliating body to consider the applications and pass appropriate orders granting or refusing to grant recognition/affiliation to the petitioner institutions within three months from today. D) If the institutions are aggrieved from the order c passed by the authorities in terms of clause 'C' (supra), they will be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. E) The NCTE shall circulate the copy of this judgment o to all Regional Committees, concerned State Governments and all affiliating bodies and also put the some on its website .for information of all stakeholders and public at large. F) The interim order dated 27th September, 2012 is E made absolute.

75Copy pinpoint75. All the writ petitions and appeals are accordingly disposed of, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. F K.K.T. Writ Petitions & Appeals disposed.