ORDER
A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.
1. In these petitions filed by the educational institution and the students studying in the institution the following reliefs have been sought:
(a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the order of the 2nd respondent passed in an appeal in File No. F. 42-84/2001-Appeat 15050, dated 1st November, 2001 marked as Annexure-A;
(b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 1st respondent to grant the NOC under Regulation 5(e) and 5(f) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and with further direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to grant the recognition under Section 14 of the Act from the year 2000-01.
2. The facts leading to this petition, briefly stated, are as follows.--The petitioner-institution is incorporated under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act and is a linguistic minority institution. The institution in order to meet the requirement of Tamil Teachers sought to establish a Tamil Teachers Training School in Karnataka. With that object in view, the petitioner moved the first respondent-State tor requisite no objection certificate ('NOC' for short), under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 ('the Act' for short). The State Government by its order dated 31-1-2000 rejected the prayer for NOC. In the meanwhile in Dr. Sri Jachani Rashtreeya Sc.ua Peetha, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka. and Ors., 1999(5) Kar. L.J. 587: ILR 1999 Kar. 2561 the policy decision taken by the State Government not to permit opening of teacher education institutions was struck down as non est by a learned Single Judge of this Court. It was held that the legislative field pertaining to teacher education was covered by the Central legislation and State Government ceased to have any power under Article 162 of the Constitution to take any policy decision with regard to that subject. This order was taken up in appeal in National Council for Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee, Bangalore and Anr. v. Dr. Sri Jachani Rastriya Seva Peetha, Bangalore and Anr., 2001(6) Kar. L.J. 17: ILR 2001 Kar. 1148 and the Division Bench of this Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the Regional Committee of the NCTE to consider and dispose off the applications that were pending with it for recognition. Following the directions of this Court the petitioner-institution presented its application for recognition. The Southern Regional Committee of the NGTE by its order dated 16-8-2001 (Annexure-F) rejected the prayer of the petitioner-institution for recognition under Section 14 of the Act concurring with the reasons assigned by the State Government for refusing NOC. The petitioner preferred appeal under Section 14 of the Act before the second respondent-NCTE and the appeal also came to be dismissed by the NOTE by its order dated 1-11-2001. Aggrieved by the order of rejection for recognition the petitioner-institution along with the students have preferred these writ petitions.
3. I have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.
4. As things stand now, the validity of Regulation 5(e) of the Regulations 1995 framed under the Act has been upheld by this Court. A Division Bench of this Court in a subsequent decision has held that production of NOC is not mandatory and an application for recognition cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the NOC has not been produced. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that this being the position in law, the NCTE could not have rejected the application for recognition. But this is not a case in which the NCTE has refused to consider the application for recognition because the NOC was not produced along with the application. The operative portion of the order passed rejecting the prayer for recognition would make things obvious and it reads:
'Whereas, the applicant-institution, Friends Cultural Educational Society, SVCK, Temple Road, 2nd Main Road, Thyagarajanagar, Bangalore - 560 028 had applied for recognition under Section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993 for establishment of TCH Course.
The said application along with the endorsement of the State Government was considered by SRC as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court and SRC concurs with the views expressed by the State Government. The application of the Friends Cultural Educational Society for recognition of TCH Course is therefore rejected.
As per Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993, there is a provision to prefer an appeal against the above order of refusal. A copy of the format to prefer the appeal is enclosed along with this order'.
Thus, it is not a case of rejection of the application simpliciter on the ground of non-production of NOC. The Regional Committee has considered the endorsement of the State Government to the effect that there was no need for establishing new institutions in the State for conducting TCH Courses. The endorsement of the State Government draws attention to the fact that there are 70,073 trained teachers on the live registers of employment exchange awaiting jobs and about 7,170 trained teachers pass out every year swelling their rank. It is also noted in the Government Order that the State's requirement of teachers due to retirement on superannuation, death etc., is around 600 only. It is based on these factual figures that the Government has refused to grant NOC. As it is not a case where the application is rejected merely on the ground that no NOC has been produced along with the application, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 1stNovember, 2001 passed by the NCTE rejecting the appeal of the petitioner-institution preferred against the order passed by the Regional Committee as per Annexure-F, dated 16-8-2001. It is quite clear from the order of the Regional Committee of the NCTE that it has weighed the pros and cons of granting the affiliation and on such consideration it has found it fit to reject the application for recognition. The grant or refusal of recognition by the NCTE is a statutory function to be performed by it after weighing the correctness or otherwise of the policy decision of the States in the matter of establishment of new educational institutions. It is with this object in view that Regulation 5(e) finds place in the Act. If, on such consideration the NCTE is satisfied that there is no need for more teachers in a given State given the large number of unemployed teachers and refuses permission to an aspiring institution, the same cannot be found fault with. So long as the rejection has some reasonable and justifiable nexus to the object for the achievement of which the Act has been promulgated and is aimed at curtailing mushrooming of such institutions in the best interest of persons who have already been trained and in order to curtail unhealthy competition amongst such institutions then, certainly, the order cannot be found fault with. The Act has been enacted in order to achieve planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith. If a policy decision is made by the State based on some factual material and the NCTE basing on those material facts declines to grant the affiliation in furtherance of the objectives for the attainment of which the Act has been promulgated, such an order declining affiliation cannot be found fault with. In the case on hand, I am fully satisfied that the decision of the NCTE in appeal is justifiable as it can well be substantiated on the basis of the existing ground reality. The order is not one passed without basis and nor does it suffer from arbitrariness or unreasonableness,
5. The prayer for permitting the students to appear in the examination also cannot be granted as the institution does not have recognition. The Apex Court has held in State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute and Anr., : [1991]2SCR231 that any direction for permitting the students to appear at the examination without the institution being affiliated or recognised would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations. This Court cannot be a party to a direction to the students to disobey the statute as that would be destructive of the rule of law.
6. In the result, for the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.