//
you're reading...
legal issues

the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the `Council’), impart teacher training course (B.Ed.). = Appellants-institutions, which are recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the `Council’), impart teacher training course (B.Ed.). On their request the `Council’ permitted additional intake of students for such course without seeking accreditation and Letter Grade B from National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC). Subsequently, the `Council’ framed “National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as `Regulations, 2007) by notification dated 10th December, 2007 introducing Regulation 8(4) and 8(5) which the appellants unsuccessfully challenged before the High Court. =plain reading of the Regulations 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5) makes it clear that right of exemption, if any, accrued to an institution in view of `Note’

From left to right: Virchand Gandhi, Hewivitar...

Image via Wikipedia

 1

 REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5961 OF 2010

SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE 

OF EDUCATION & ORS. ... APPELLANTS

 Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS

 J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

1. Appellants-institutions, which are recognised by the National Council 

for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the `Council'), impart teacher 

training course (B.Ed.). On their request the `Council' permitted additional 

intake of students for such course without seeking accreditation and Letter 

Grade B from National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC). 

Subsequently, the `Council' framed "National Council for Teacher Education 

(Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter referred to 

as `Regulations, 2007) by notification dated 10th December, 2007 introducing 

Regulation 8(4) and 8(5) which the appellants unsuccessfully challenged 

before the High Court. 

2. As per Regulation 8(4) an institution is required to be accredited with 

the NAAC with a Letter Grade B, whereas as per Regulation 8(5) those 

 2

institutions which had been granted additional intake in B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. 

teacher training courses after promulgation of the Regulations, 2005 i.e. 13 th 

January, 2006 are required to get themselves accredited with the NAAC with a 

Letter Grade B before Ist April, 2010.

3. The validity of Regulation 8(4) and 8(5) was challenged by the 

appellants on the following grounds:

 (i) Their right to establish and run their institutions enshrined under 

 Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India stands curtailed;

 (ii) they will suffer constitutional injury on account of the `Council' 

 outsourcing its statutory functions in the absence of statutory 

 authorisation for sub-delegation of the delegated power;

(iii) by giving a retrospective effect to the Regulations and

(iv) due to non-performance of statutory duties by the `Council'.

4. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that the Regulation 

8(4) merely puts a `condition' for making an application that the applicant 

should have itself accredited with the NAAC with a Letter Grade B; the Court 

further held that the Regulation 8(5) is prospective in nature, being a 

`condition' imposed in continuation of additional intake. 

5. During the pendency of the present appeal the `Council' framed the 

"National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norm and Procedure) 

 3

Regulations, 2009 w.e.f. 31st August, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the 

"NCTE Regulations, 2009") but as Regulation 8(4) and 8(5) is identically 

worded so far as B.Ed. course, this Court by order dated 15th March, 2010 

permitted the appellants to challenge the validity of new Regulation 8(4) and 

8(5) of Regulations, 2009. 

STAND OF THE APPELLANTS

6. Learned counsel for the appellants while contending that there was no 

requirement for any approved institutions to get them accredited with NAAC 

for enhancement of intake of seats in the course, the following submissions 

were made:

 (i) The `Council' cannot sub-delegate its functions and duties 

 conferred upon it by the parent Act i.e. NCTE Act, 1993 to an outside 

 institution namely NAAC in absence of express authorisation by the 

 parent Act. Therefore, Regulation 8(4) ultra vires the NCTE Act, 1993 

 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India being against the principle 

 "delegates non potest delegare".

 (ii) The NCTE Act, 1993 does not authorise the `Council' to frame 

 Regulations retrospectively; in absence of such power the delegatee the 

 `Council' cannot make subordinate legislation retrospectively. The 

 requirement, therefore, contemplated under Regulation 8(5) being ex-

 facie retrospective, taking away the right of the appellants to continue 

 4

 with the additional seats of B.Ed. course, is violative of Article 19(1)(g) 

 of the Constitution.

 (iii) Regulation 8(5) and paragraph 6 of notice dated Ist October, 

 2008 issued by the `Council' asking all institutions which were already 

 granted additional intake in B.Ed./B.P.Ed. courses after Ist January, 2006 

 to get themselves accredited with NAAC with Grade B certificate ultra 

 vires the NCTE Act, 1993 disturbing and altering the vested and accrued 

 fundamental rights of the institutions. 

7. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to provisions of NCTE Act, 

1993 and relevant Rules and the decisions of this Court which will be 

discussed at an appropriate stage. 

Stand of respondent-NCTE

8. Per contra, according to the learned counsel for the 

respondent-`Council' Regulation 8(4) does not amount to delegation of any of 

the powers of the `Council'. It merely imposed a `condition' required for 

opening a new course or intake for students as empowered under the NCTE 

Act, 1993. The Regulation 8(5) does not amount to giving effect from 

retrospective date, as such power was already extending under Regulations, 

2005. 

9. He would further submit as follows:

 5

(i) The condition as stipulated in impugned Regulation 8((4) was 

already existing even earlier in Regulations, 2005. Regulation 8(3) and 

8(4) of Regulations, 2005 was relaxed for certain period vide notification 

dated 20th July, 2006 and 10th December, 2007. Some of the institutions 

had made applications to the Regional Committees of the `Council' for 

grant of permission or recognition for additional intake of seats in favour 

of recognised course during the period from 21st July, 2006 to 10th 

December, 2007. Their applications were processed and decided without 

insisting upon the requirement of having three academic sessions of 

running the course as was stipulated under Regulation 8(3) or having 

accredited with NAAC with a Letter Grade B as was stipulated under 

Regulation 8(4). Since, the conditions under Regulation 8(3) and 8(4) 

were brought into force by Regulations, 2007, it was decided that those 

institutions which have been granted recognition for enhancement of seats 

without insisting upon the condition of having accredited with the NAAC, 

have been directed to get themselves accredited with NAAC.

(ii) The condition stipulated under Regulation 8(4) does not amount 

to sub-delegation of power but merely a `condition' laid down for grant of 

recognition of new course or for enhancement of additional intake in the 

existing course. So far as processing, scrutinising and deciding upon an 

application for recognition/permission for conducting teacher training 

course is concerned, it is the `Council' and its Regional Committees 

 6

 which are alone responsible and entrusted with discharging such functions 

 as enshrined under the Act.

 (iii) The Regulation 8(5) only provides that the institutions who have 

 been granted recognition for enhancement of additional intake of seats 

 during the period of relaxation to obtain accreditation before Ist April, 

 2010 and the same is prospective in nature.

10. In this case the questions arise for determination are:

 (i) Whether under Regulation 8(4) the `Council' has sub-delegated 

 any of its functions and duties conferred by parent Act to NAAC; and

 (ii) Whether Regulation 8(5) is retrospective in nature affecting 

 fundamental rights of appellants guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of 

 Constitution of India.

11. Before examining the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the 

parties, it would be convenient to notice the relevant provisions of the NCTE 

Act, 1993 and the Regulations framed thereunder.

12. The NCTE Act, 1993 was enacted to maintain standards of teacher 

education with a view to achieve planned and co-ordinated development of the 

teacher education system throughout the country. It was decided that the 

`Council' would be provided with necessary resources and capability to 

accredit institutions of teacher education and provide guidance regarding 

 7

curricula and methods. It was also decided to provide statutory powers to the 

`Council' with the objective of determination, maintenance and co-ordination 

of standards in teacher education, laying down norms and guidelines for 

various courses, promotion of innovation in this field and to establish a suitable 

system of continuing education of teachers (see: Statement of Objects and 

Reasons of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993).

13. Section 12 of the NCTE Act, 1993 empowers the `Council' to take all 

steps for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education 

and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teacher education. 

For the purposes of such functions the Council is empowered to evolve suitable 

performance appraisal system, norms and mechanism for enforcing 

accountability on recognised institutions under Section 12(k) which is as 

follows:

 "12(k) evolve suitable performance appraisal system, 

 norms and mechanism for enforcing accountability on 

 recognised institutions;"

14. For the purpose of ascertaining whether the recognised institutions are 

functioning in accordance with the provision of the Act, the Council is 

empowered to cause inspection of any such institution in such manner as may 

be prescribed under Section 13 of the NCTE Act, 1993.

15. The `Council' is empowered to recognise institutions offering course or 

training in teacher education under Section 14. For opening a new course or 

 8

training by recognised institutions the `Council' is empowered under Section 

15 to grant permission in such form and in such manner as may be determined 

by regulations.

16. Under Section 32 the `Council' is empowered to make regulations not 

inconsistent with the provisions of the NCTE Act, 1993 and the rules made 

thereunder. Clause (f) and (h) of sub-section (2) of Section 32 empowers the 

`Council' to frame regulations and to lay down `conditions' for the proper 

functioning of the institution and `conditions' for granting recognition under 

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 14 and clause (a) of sub-section (3) of 

Section 15 respectively, as evident from the said provisions and reproduced 

hereunder: 

 "32.POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS 

 (1) The Council may, by notification in the Official Gazette, 

 make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this 

 Act and the rules made thereunder, generally to carry out the 

 provisions of this Act.

 (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of 

 the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or 

 any of the following matters, namely :- 

 xxx xxx xxx

 (f) conditions required for the proper functioning of the 

 institution and conditions for granting recognition under 

 clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 14;

 xxx xxx xxx

 (h) conditions required for the proper conduct of a new 

 course or training and conditions for granting permission 

 under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 15;

 9

 xxx xxx xxx"

17. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 32 the `Council' framed 

Regulations National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & 

Procedure) Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "NCTE 

Regulations, 2005") notified by Notification No.F.49-42/2005-NCTE (N&S) 

dated 27th December, 2005 published on 13th January, 2006. The NCTE 

Regulation, 2005 were applicable to all matters relating to teacher education 

programme, covering norms and standards and conditions for grant of such 

recognition. Clause (3) and Clause (4) of Regulation 8 of NCTE Regulations, 

2005 were as follows:

 "8(3) An institution shall be permitted to apply for 

 enhancement of intake in a teacher education course already 

 approved after completion of three academic sessions of 

 running the course.

 (4) An Institution shall be permitted to apply for 

 enhancement of intake in Secondary Teacher Education 

 Programme - B.Ed & B.P.Ed. Programme, if it has accredited 

 itself with the National Assessment and Accreditation Council 

 (NAAC) with a Letter Grade B developed by NAAC."

18. It was stipulated that pending finalisation of new norms and standards, 

the existing norms were to continue till then. 

19. Subsequently, by notification dated 20th July, 2006 the `Council' framed 

"National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) 

(Amendment) Regulations, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment 

Regulations, 2006) as under:

 10

 "Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-

 section (2) of Section 32 of the National Council for Teacher 

 Education Act, 1993 (73 of 1993), the National Council for Teacher 

 Education hereby makes the following regulations, namely:-

 1. Short Title and Commencement:

 (1) These regulations may be called the "National Council for 

 Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure)(Amendment) 

 Regulations, 2006."

2. A
 pplicability 

 (1) These regulations shall be applicable to all matters 

 pertaining to grant of recognition/ permission to conduct a 

 secondary teacher education programme in face to face mode 

 leading to B.Ed. degree or equivalent.

 (2) They shall come into force from the date of their 

 publication in the Official Gazette.

3. E
 xtent of Amendment 

 (i) The appendix - 7 of the norms and standards which was 

 notified by NCTE Regulations, 2002 and retained in the NCTE 

 Regulations, 2005 shall be replaced by the appendix - 1 to this 

 amendment and be read as part thereof. 

 Note:- For enhancement of intake in the course where new norms 

 have been published after notification of the Regulations dated 

 27.12.2005, the conditions prescribed in Rule 8(3) and 8(4) of the 

 said Regulation shall not be applicable."

It was followed by Regulations, 2007 framed by the `Council' bringing back 

the condition of accreditation of institution with NAAC with the Letter Grade 

B as was prescribed under Regulation 8(4) of NCTE Regulations, 2005. Those 

institutions who were granted additional intake in B.Ed and B.P.Ed. teacher 

training courses after NCTE Regulations, 2005 i.e 13th January, 2006 were also 

asked to get themselves accredited with NAAC with a Letter Grade B. Apart 

 11

from the impugned Regulation 8(4) and 8(5), Regulation 8(3) of NCTE 

Regulations, 2007 being also relevant are quoted hereunder:

 "8(3) An institution shall be permitted to apply for 

 enhancement of course wise intake in teacher education 

 courses already approved, after completion of three academic 

 sessions of running the respective courses.

 (4) An Institution shall be permitted to apply for 

 enhancement of intake in Secondary Teacher Education 

 Programme - B.Ed & B.P.Ed. Programme, if it has accredited 

 itself with the National Assessment and Accreditation Council 

 (NAAC) with a Letter Grade B developed by NAAC.

 (5) An institution that has been granted additional 

 intake in B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. teacher training courses after 

 promulgation of the Regulations, 2005,i.e., 13.1.2006 shall 

 have to be accredited itself with the National Assessment and 

 Accreditation Council (NAAC) with a Letter Grade B under the 

 new grading system developed by NAAC before Ist April, 2010 

 failing which the additional intake granted shall stand 

 withdrawn w.e.f. the academic session 2010-2011."

20. As stated earlier, during the pendency of the present civil appeal the 

NCTE Regulations, 2009 was enacted with similar worded provisions under 

Regulation 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5).

21. The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) is an 

autonomous body established by the University Grants Commission (UGC) of 

India to assess and accredit institutions of higher education in the country. It is 

an outcome of the recommendations of the National Policy in Education (1986) 

that laid special emphasis on upholding the quality of higher education in India, 

as appears from "Manual of Accreditation" (Revised Edition, January, 2004) 

 12

published by National Board of Accreditation All India Council for Technical 

Education, I.G. Sports Complex, I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110 002.

22. The system of higher education in India has expanded rapidly during the 

last fifty years and in spite of built-in regulatory mechanisms that ensure 

satisfactory levels of quality in the functioning of higher education institutions, 

there have been criticisms that the country has permitted the mushrooming of 

institutions of higher education with fancy programme and substandard 

facilities and consequent dilution of standards. To address the issues of 

deterioration in quality, the National Policy on Education (1986) and the Plan 

of Action (POA-1992) was made which spelt out the strategic plans for the 

policies and advocated the establishment of an independent national 

accreditation body. Consequently, the NAAC was established in 1994 with its 

headquarters at Bangalore.

23. The Methodology for the assessment of a unit, the NAAC follows a 

three-stage process which is a combination of self-study and peer review, as 

follows:

(1) The preparation and submission of a self-study 

report by the unit of assessment. 

(2) The on-site visit of the peer team for validation of 

the self-study report and for recommending the assessment outcome to 

the NAAC.

(3) The final decision by the Executive Committee of 

the NAAC.

 13

The self-study report validated by peers is the backbone of the whole exercise. 

Manuals have been developed to suit different units of higher education, with 

detailed guidelines on the preparation of the self-study report and the other 

aspects of assessment and accreditation. 

24. Section 12 of NCTE Act, 1993 deals with function of the Council. 

Under Section 12(k) the `Council' is required to evolve suitable performance 

appraisal system, norms and mechanism for enforcing accountability on 

recognised institutions which reads as under:

 "12. Functions of the Council.- It shall be the duty of the Council 

 to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and 

 co-ordinated development of teacher education and for the 

 determination and maintenance of standards for teacher 

 education and for the purposes of performing its functions under 

 this Act, the Council may - 

 (k) evolve suitable performance appraisal system, norms 

 and mechanism for enforcing accountability on recognised 

 institutions;

25. In fulfilment of the provisions under Section 12(k) of the NCTE 

Act, 1993 i.e. to evolve suitable performance appraisal systems, norms and 

mechanisms for enforcing accountability on recognised institutions and for 

quality assurance of Teacher Education Institutions, the NAAC entered into an 

"Memorandum of Understanding"(MOU) with the `Council' for executing the 

process of assessment and accreditation of all Teacher Education Institutions 

coming under the provisions of NCTE Act, 1993. The efforts of `Council' and 

 14

NAAC are to ensure and assure the quality of Teachers Education Institutions 

in the country complementary to each other. Combining the teacher education 

and quality assurance, the NAAC developed the methodology for assessment 

and accreditation of Teacher Education Institutions as appears from the 

"Manual for Self-appraisal of Teacher Education Institutions". The aforesaid 

facts can be noticed from the documents supplied by the parties which 

prescribe the methodology of assessment required to be followed by the 

NAAC as per strategic plans, policies and memorandum of understanding 

reached between NAAC and the `Council'.

26. Before we decide on the validity of Regulations 8(4) and 8(5), we must 

first deal with the law as laid down by this Court in different decisions with 

regard to the power of a delegate of a legislature, such as the Council in this 

case, to make rules and regulations. In Hamdard Dawakhana and Another v. 

Union of India and Others [AIR 1960 SC 554], this Court held:

 ".....Thus when the delegate is given the power of making rules and 

 regulations in order to fill in the details to carry out and subserve the 

 purposes of the legislation the manner in which the requirements of the 

 statute are to be met and the rights therein created to be enjoyed it is an 

 exercise of delegated legislation....."

Thus, a delegate of the legislature is conferred with the power to make rules 

and regulations to carry out the purposes of the legislation and such rules and 

regulations are called delegated legislation or subordinate legislation. 

 15

27. This Court has also laid down the grounds on which such delegated 

legislation or subordinate legislation can be challenged in the Court. In Indian 

Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. and others v. Union of India and 

Others [(1985) 1 SCC 641], this Court has observed in Para 75 at page 689:

 "A piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of 

 immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent 

 Legislature. Subordinate legislation may be questioned on any of the 

 grounds on which plenary legislation is questioned. In addition, it may 

 also be questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the statute 

 under which it is made. It may further be questioned on the ground that 

 it is contrary to some other statute. That is because subordinate 

 legislation must yield to plenary legislation. It may also be questioned 

 on the ground that it is unreasonable, unreasonable not in the sense of 

 not being reasonable, but in the sense that it is manifestly 

 arbitrary......"

 28. Again in Clariant International Ltd. and Another v. Securities & 

 Exchange Board of India [(2004) 8 SCC 524], this Court held in 

 Para 63 at page 547:

 "When any criterion is fixed by a statute or by a policy, an 

 attempt should be made by the authority making the delegated 

 legislation to follow the policy formulation broadly and 

 substantially and in conformity therewith."

 29. The grounds on which the validity of a delegated legislation can be 

 challenged have also been discussed at length in Vasu Dev Singh 

 and Others v. Union of India and others [(2006) 12 SCC 753] in 

 which the Court has reiterated the aforesaid law.

 30. The aforesaid law laid down by the Court on the grounds of judicial 

 review of delegated legislation or subordinate legislation will have 

 16

 to be borne in mind while deciding the validity of Regulation 8(4) 

 made by the Council. In other words, if the Regulation 8(4) is in 

 broad conformity with the objects and policy of the Act and is not in 

 conflict with any statutory or constitutional provisions, the 

 regulation made by the delegate, namely, the Council, will have to 

 be held to be valid. 

31. We find that the NCTE Act, 1993 was enacted with the object (i) to 

achieve planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system 

throughout the country and (ii) for laying down the proper maintenance of 

norms and standards in the teacher education system; the `Council' has been 

empowered by the parent Act to regulate development of teacher education, 

proper maintenance of norms and the standards. 

 Section 12(k) empowers the `Council' to maintain teacher education, its 

performance appraisal system and to lay down norms and mechanism for 

enforcing accountability on recognised institutions. 

 Under Section 15 the `Council' can determine as to which institution be 

allowed to offer new course or training in teacher education; for which the 

`Council' is empowered under Section 32(2)(h) to prescribe `condition' for 

grant of such permission and recognition. 

32. The `Council' is also empowered to cause inspection of any institution 

through any person under Section 13 of the NCTE Act, 1993.

 17

33. Combined reading of Section 12(k), Section 15 and Section 32(2)(h), 

makes it clear that the `Council' is empowered to frame a Regulation laying 

down `conditions' for proper conduct of a new course or training under clause 

(a) of sub-section (3) of Section 15.

34. What will be the `condition' to be laid down for starting a new course or 

training or for increase in the intake of students can be determined only by the 

`Council' in view of clause (h) of sub-section (2) of Section 32. It can 

prescribe the such `condition', as it deems fit and proper with only rider that 

such `condition' should not be against any of the provisions of the NCTE Act, 

1993 or Rules framed thereunder. 

 For example the `Council' may prescribe a condition that the 

qualification of a teacher should be a degree of a particular subject obtained 

from a recognised University, to grant recognition to start a new course. If such 

condition is prescribed it will not amount to delegation of its power to an 

University to grant such degree.

 In the case in hand under Regulation 8(4) the `Council' having 

prescribed a `condition' for recognition that an institution accredited by NAAC 

with a Letter Grade B is entitled to apply for enhancement of intake in 

Secondary Teacher Education Programme-B.Ed. &B.P.Ed., it can not be held 

to be sub-delegation of power, as contended by the appellants. The first 

question is, thus answered in negative against the appellants. 

 18

35. In the case of State Bank's Staff Union (Madras Circle) vs. Union of 

India and others reported in (2005) 7 SCC 584, Supreme Court noticed and 

defined the expression "retrospective" as under:

 "19. Every sovereign legislature possesses the right to make 

 retrospective legislation. The power to make laws includes the 

 power to give it retrospective effect. Craies on Statute Law (7th 

 Edn.) at p. 387 defines retrospective statutes in the following 

 words:

 "A statute is to be deemed to be retrospective, which 

 takes away or impairs any vested right acquired under 

 existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a 

 new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect to 

 transactions or considerations already past."

 20. Judicial Dictionary (13th Edn.) by K.J. Aiyar, 

 Butterworth, p. 857, states that the word "retrospective" when 

 used with reference to an enactment may mean (i) affecting an 

 existing contract; or (ii) reopening up of past, closed and 

 completed transaction; or (iii) affecting accrued rights and 

 remedies; or (iv) affecting procedure. Words and Phrases, 

 Permanent Edn., Vol. 37-A, pp. 224-25, defines a "retrospective 

 or retroactive law" as one which takes away or impairs vested 

 or accrued rights acquired under existing laws. A retroactive law 

 takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing 

 laws, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or 

 attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or 

 considerations already past.

 21. In Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanath Aiyar (3rd 

 Edn., 2005) the expressions "retroactive" and "retrospective" 

 have been defined as follows at p. 4124, Vol. 4:

 "Retroactive.--Acting backward; affecting what is past. 

 (Of a statute, ruling, etc.) extending in scope or effect to 

 matters that have occurred in the past. -- Also termed 

 retrospective. (Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edn., 1999)

 ` "Retroactivity" is a term often used by lawyers but 

 rarely defined. On analysis it soon becomes apparent, 

 19

 moreover, that it is used to cover at least two distinct 

 concepts. The first, which may be called "true retroactivity", 

 consists in the application of a new rule of law to an act or 

 transaction which was completed before the rule was 

 promulgated. The second concept, which will be referred to 

 as "quasi-retroactivity", occurs when a new rule of law is 

 applied to an act or transaction in the process of 

 completion.... The foundation of these concepts is the 

 distinction between completed and pending transactions....' 

 T.C. Hartley, Foundations of European Community Law, p. 

 129 (1981).

 * * *

 Retrospective.--Looking back; contemplating what is 

 past.

 Having operation from a past time.

 `Retrospective' is somewhat ambiguous and that good 

 deal of confusion has been caused by the fact that it is used in 

 more senses than one. In general, however, the courts regard 

 as retrospective any statute which operates on cases or facts 

 coming into existence before its commencement in the sense 

 that it affects, even if for the future only, the character or 

 consequences of transactions previously entered into or of 

 other past conduct. Thus, a statute is not retrospective merely 

 because it affects existing rights; nor is it retrospective 

 merely because a part of the requisite for its action is drawn 

 from a time antecedent to its passing." (Vol. 44, Halsbury's 

 Laws of England, 4th Edn., p. 570, para 921.)"

 Therefore, it is to be seen as to whether Regulation 8(5) takes away any 

right of the appellants or impairs any vested right acquired by appellants under 

the existing law or has created any new obligation in their part.

36. Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) were already in vogue since 13th January, 

2006 when Regulations dated 27th December, 2005 came into effect. As per 

Regulation 8(3) only after three academic sessions an institution was eligible to 

apply for enhancement of intake of students in the course. Under Regulation 

8(4) only such institution which had accredited itself with the NAAC with a 

 20

Letter Grade B+ was entitled to apply for enhancement of intake of students in 

the Secondary Teacher Education Programme, B.Ed. and B.P.Ed.

37. "The norms and standards" were prescribed under Regulation 8 of 

Regulation 2002 as follows:-

 "Norms and Standards for various teacher education programmes

(i) The Norms and Standards for various teacher education courses 

are given in the Appendices 3 to 14 as indicated below which an institution offering 

the said course is required to comply with.

 (i) Norms and Standards for Pro School Appendix-3

 Teacher Education Programme

 (ii) Norms and Standards for Nursery Teacher Appendix-4

 Education Programme

 (iii) Norms and Standards for Elementary Appendix-5

 Teacher Education Programme

 (iv) Norms and Standards for Bachelor of Appendix-6

 Elementary Education (B.El.Ed)

 (v) Norms and Standards for Secondary Appendix-7

 Teacher Education Programme

 (vi) Norms and Standards for Master of Appendix-8

 Education (M.Ed.) Programme

 (vii) Norms and Standards for Master of Appendix-9

 Education (M.Ed.) Programme (Part time)

 (viii) Norms and Standards for Certificate in Appendix-10

 Physical Education (C.P.Ed.) Programme

 (ix) Norms and Standards for Bachelor of Appendix-11

 Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) Programme

 (x) Norms and Standards for Master of Appendix-12

 Physical Education (M.P.Ed.) Programme

 (xi) Norms and Standards for B.Ed. (Open and Appendix-13

 Distance Learning System)

 (xii) Norms and Standards for M.Ed. (Open and Appendix-14

 Distance Learning System)

 (ii) The norms and standards herein notified are minimum and 

 essential. The institution may strengthen further the physical 

 and instructional infrastructure."

 21

The aforesaid "norms and standards" were notified by NCTE Regulations 2002 

and retained in the NCTE Regulations, 2005. Appendix-7 was related to 

"norms and standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme". 

 The norms related to Secondary Teacher Education Programme leading 

to B.Ed. Degree (face-to-face) were in process of change. After finalization of 

such norms relating to revision of Secondary Teacher Education Programme 

leading to B.Ed. Degree Course (face-to-face) the NCTE enacted National 

Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) 

(Amendment) Regulations, 2006. By amended Regulation 3 the "norms and 

standards", as was stipulated in Appendix-7 was replaced by Appendix-1 of the 

Amended Regulations, 2006. The said Appendix-1 was made a part of the 

main Regulations, 2005 dated 27th December, 2005. By a `Note' below the said 

amended Regulation 3 it was clarified that conditions prescribed under 

Regulation 8(3) and 8(4) shall not be applicable in certain cases, as shown 

hereunder: 

 "3. Extent of Amendment

 (i). The appendix - 7 of the norms and standards which was 

 notified by NCTE Regulation, 2002 and retained in the NCTE 

 Regulations, 2005 shall be replaced by the appendix-1 to this 

 amendment and be read as part thereof.

 Note:- For enhancement of intake in the course where new norms 

 have been published after notification of the Regulations dated 

 27.12.2005, the conditions prescribed in Rule 8(3) and 8(4) of the 

 said Regulation shall not be applicable."

38. Thereby, the Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) remained in force for all 

Teachers Education Courses, e.g. Elementary Teachers Education Programme, 

 22

Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.), Standard for Secondary Teacher 

Education Programme, Master of Education (M.Ed.) Programme etc., even 

after amended Regulations 2006, but with a rider that in case new norms are 

published for any such Course after notification of Regulations dated 27th 

December, 2005, the conditions prescribed in Rule 8(3) and 8(4) of the 

Regulations, 2005 dated 27th December, 2005 shall not be applicable for such 

course. 

39. Subsequently, when Regulations 2007 were enacted, the Regulations 

8(3) and 8(4) of Regulations 2005 were retained. In the aforesaid 

circumstances by Regulation 8(5) it was clarified that if any institution has 

been granted additional intake in B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. teachers training courses 

after enactment of Regulations 2005 i.e. 13th January, 2006, such institution is 

required to be accredited itself with NAAC with a Letter Grade B. 

 It is needless to say that Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) of Regulations 2005 

dated 27th December, 2005 having retained, it was always open to NCTE to 

remind the institutions that they were required to follow Regulations 8(3) and 

8(4), if were allowed additional intake after 13th January, 2006. For the reason 

aforesaid the Regulation 8(5) cannot be held to be retrospective. The second 

question is, thereby, answered in negative against the appellants. 

40. Further, as plain reading of the Regulations 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5) makes it 

clear that right of exemption, if any, accrued to an institution in view of `Note' 

 23

below Regulation 3 of amended Regulations 2006, has not been taken away 

nor impaired any vested right acquired by any institution and as no new 

obligation on the part of any institution has been created, they being governed 

by Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) since 13th January, 2006, the Regulation 8(5) 

cannot be held to be retrospective. The Regulations 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5) having 

nexus with maintenance of standards of teacher education and to make 

qualitative improvement in the system of teacher education by phasing out sub-

standard teaching, the validity of Regulation 8(4) and 8(5) cannot be 

questioned. In absence of any merit, the appeal is dismissed but there shall be 

no order as to costs.

 .......................................................J.

 ( R. V. RAVEENDRAN )

 ......................................................J.

 ( A.K. PATNAIK)

 .......................................................J.

 ( SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

NEW DELHI,OCTOBER 12, 2011.

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Blog Stats

  • 2,873,459 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: