J.B. Koshy, J.
1. Power and authority of the National Council for Teacher Education (in short NCTE) constituted under The National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') in issuing various directions to institutions which offers B.Ed. Degree Course and Training in Teacher Education especially with regard to recognition of Teachers Training Colleges and fixation of teacher-pupil ratio at 1 : 10 are to be considered in these original petitions. The aided training colleges challenged the directions issued by the National Council for Teacher Education with regard to teacher-pupil ratio at 1 : 10 on the ground that they were existing and conducting the course for more than 25 years and their staff strength is governed by the University Regulations as approved by the Government and the University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) Government is paying the salary of teachers and, therefore, without sanction from the University to which they are affiliated and compliance of the norms of the University and the Government, they are unable to appoint more teachers. Their staff strength is fixed as per the Rules of the University in which they are affiliated if NCTE norms are implemented, UGC norms regarding work loaded will be violated. Therefore, it is contended that teacher-pupil ratio of 1 : 10 (subsequently revised by NCTE as 1: 12.5) cannot be implemented by them as it is contrary to the Rules of the University and norms of UGC. Another set of writ petitions were filed by the Universities in Kerala, viz., Kerala, Calicut and Mahatma Gandhi Universities, contending that they are autonomous bodies created by the statute and NCTE regulation is not applicable to Universities with regard to academic standards and other connected matters. It is for them to decide the matter and in any event, NCTE has no supervisory powers over powers and functions of the University and courses conducted by them. Hence the teachers training centres directly run by the University which conduct B.Ed. degree course are not governed by NCTE regulations. The private unaided colleges also filed writ petitions stating that they are compelled to comply with the NCTE norms. Without complying with all regulations and recognition from NCTE, University will not grant affiliation but centres run by University for conducting B.Ed. Course have no required facilities and, therefore. Court should issue directions that Universities also should not conduct their centres offering courses in teaching education without complying with NCTE directions. In O.P. No. 5684 of 2000, filed by Malabar H.P. Kendra, Kondotty, if is stated they were unable to apply in the prescribed form as wrong form was submitted to them. The matter was earlier heard by a Division Bench consisting of A.V. Savant, C.J. and K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. and the Court prima facie found that the working hours fixed by the NCTE is unworkable as universities and affiliated colleges have to comply with the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, by order dated 17th July, 2000 the Court directed that the matter may be discussed in a meeting with the representatives of the University Grants Commission, Universities, NCTE, Government and all other related parties. A meeting was convened on 11-8-2002 and copy of the minutes were also filed before this Court as Annexure A to memo dated 18-2-2003 filed by the counsel for NCTE in O.P. No. 15971 of 2000. It is submitted by the NCTE that after considering the merits and study by an expert committee, notification dated 3rd Sept. 2001 was published reducing teacher-pupil ratio of 1:12.5. Some other relaxations also were granted.
2. The first question to be decided in these cases is the legislative competence in enacting the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and power of NCTE to issue directions. We are of the view that the matter is already covered by the Apex Court judgment in this matter. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers College, (2002) 8 SCC 228 : (AIR 2002 SC 3675), held that the Act is valid and it was passed within the legislative-competence of Parliament under Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII. In that case provision in Section 17(4) was challenged. The above Section 17(4) invalidates the qualification of teachers of recognised institutions from the NCTE for the purpose of employment under the State Government. The Court held that the above provision is perfectly valid. In paragraph 8 of the judgment the Court held as follows :
'8. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of rule of construction, if the provisions of the impugned statute, namely, the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 are examined and more particularly Section 17(4) thereof which we have already extracted, the conclusion is irresistible that the statute is one squarely dealing with coordination and determination of standard in institutions for higher education within the meaning of Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. Both Entries 65 and 66 of List I empower the Central Legislature to secure the standards of research and the standards of higher education, the object behind them being that the same standards are not lowered at the hands of the particular State or States to the detriment of the national progress and the power of the State Legislature must be so exercised as not to directly encroach upon power of the Union under Entry 66. The power to coordinate does not mean merely the power to evaluate but it means to harmonise or secure relationship for concerted action. A legislation made for the purpose of coordination of standards of higher education is essentially a legislation by the Central Legislature in exercise of its competence under Entry 66 of List 1 of the Seventh Schedule and Sub-section (4) of Section 17 merely provides the consequences if an institution offers a course or training in teacher education in contravention of the Act though the ultimate consequences under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 may be that an unqualified teacher will not be entitled to get an employment under the State or Central Government or in a university or in a college. But by no stretch of imagination can be said provision be construed to mean a law dealing with employment as has been held by the High Court in the impugned judgment.'
3. Before going to the other contentions in these eases we may consider the scheme of the Act. The object of the Act is clear from the preamble itself. The preamble of the Act states as follows :
'An Act to provide for the establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education with a view of achieving 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.'
Teacher education' is defined in Section 2(1) of the Act which reads as follows :
'teacher education' means programmes of education, research or training of persons for equipping them to teach at pre-primary, primary secondary and Senior Secondary stages in schools, and includes non formal education, part time education, adult education and correspondence education.'
The other definitions which may require consideration in these cases are also quoted below :
'(d) examining body means a University, agency or authority to which an institution is affiliated for conducting examinations in teacher education qualifications;
(c) institution means an institution which offers courses or training in teacher education;
(i) recognised institution means an institution recognised by the Council under Section 14;
(m) teacher education qualification' means a degree diploma or certificate in teacher education awarded by a University or examining body in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(n) 'University' means a University defined under Clause (i) of Section 2 of the University Grants (3 of 1956) Commission Act, 1956 and includes an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of that Act;
Section 14 and 15 deal with retention of teacher education institutions, its procedure etc. Section 16 clearly provides as follows :
'16. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no examining body shall, on or after the appointed day.--
(a) grant affiliation, whether provisional, or otherwise, to any institution; or
(b) hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a recognised institution.
Unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned, under Section 14 or permission for a course or training under Section 15.'
Section 17(4) provides that even if an institution offers a course the candidates passing the above course shall not be treated as having valid qualification for the purpose of employment under the Central Government, State Government or University or in school, college or other educational body sided by the Central Government or the State Government. Section 17(4) reads as follows :
'17(1) ......................
(4) If an institution offers any course or training in teacher education after the coming into force of the order withdrawing recognition under Sub-section (1) or where an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University, or in any school, college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government.'
Section 18 provides for appeal over any decision that may be taken by the Regional Committee under Section 14, 15 and 17 to the Council. Section 31 empowers the Central Government to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act and Section 32 enables the Council to make regulations by notification in the official Gazette. Section 32(1) reads as follows :
'32.(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.'
Section 32(2) enumerates some of the matters for which regulations can be framed, which includes the minimum qualification for a person to be employed as a teacher the conditions required for the proper functioning of the institution, etc. Section 33 provides that every rule and regulation made under the Act should be laid before the Parliament and before its publication.
4. The Norms and Standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme was revised and revised regulations were published in 2001 after complying with all the formalities as prescribed by the Act, in Appendix 11 to NCTE (Norms and Standards for Teacher Education Programmes) Regulations, 2001 various standards are fixed for conducting B. Ed. and M. Ed. courses including qualifications of Principal, Lecturer, etc. of the teaching staff and provision for laboratory etc. With regard to pupil-teacher strength in teacher education colleges, the matter is mentioned in Clause 4(c) which reads as follows :
4. Curriculum Transaction and Requirement of Teaching Staff: (c) For an intake of 100 students or less, the teaching faculty shall comprise of Principal/Head and at least seven lecturers. For intake of students in excess of the prescribed limit, the number of full time teachers shall be increased proportionately.'
NCTE has given directions to all the institutions affiliated to maintain the standards prescribed in the norms including the pupil-teacher strength. The contention raised by the petitioners that the University Act and various other Acts and Rules framed by the State Government were existing before the NCTE came into force and, therefore, directions issued by NCTE to such institutions are not binding, cannot be accepted. To keep up the standards of teacher education centres. Act empowers NCTE to issue directions for teaching the teachers which is a highly professional and sensitive subject. With the new development in the world, concept of school education technology and teacher training institutes must have the facility and modern infrastructure to train the teachers to get optimum results. Therefore, one cannot be satisfied with old methods. Being a Central Legislation whenever there is conflict with State enactment, Central Act will prevail. This issue is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in (2002) 8 SCC 228 : (AIR 2002 SC 3675) (supra). The matter is further made clear with regard to the application of Indian Medical Council Act, 1958 in Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational & Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) 3 SCC 15 : (AIR 1996 SC 2384) and with regard to application of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 in State Of T. N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute (1995) 4 SCC 104: (1995 AIR SCW 2179) and in Jaya Gokul Education Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram AIR 2000 SC 1614. In all these cases, with regard to identical Acts in relation to technical education, the Supreme Court held that Central Act will prevail. Further, the Act itself was introduced to improve Teacher Education system. As far as B. Ed. is concerned, it is to train the teachers who have to train our future generation. It is also submitted that NCTE Act was implemented in all India level. Challenges made in the Act and directions of NCTE were dismissed by various High Courts. The decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in National Council for Teachers Education v. Chouhan Education Society, AIR 1999 Madh Pra 206 was cited as an example. It is also submitted that in Karnataka with regard to aided colleges where salary is paid under UGC Scheme, the Scheme was implemented. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Act and its provisions and regulations framed by the NCTE cannot be interfered by this Court and the Teacher Education Institutions are bound to follow the NCTE Act. No value contention is raised to show that the regulations issued by the NCTE are unconstitutional or arbitrary.
5. The contention raised by the aided colleges has to be considered separately. O.P. No. 6763 of 2000 was filed by the N. S. S. Training College. There are some minority aided institutions also conducting training courses for more than 25 years. They secured excellent results also. They have all the prescribed standards as per the norms of NCTE except that of pupil-teacher ratio. They arc unable to maintain the pupil teacher ratio and they are unable to appoint more teachers because of the University and Government regulations and rules and U. G. C. norms. They have got all facilities to teach the students admitted in far excess of the standards prescribed by NCTE. If the Government and University permit, they are ready to appoint more teachers also. Being aided institutions and as Government is paying the O. P. No. 16855/1999 and connected cases salary, permission from Government is necessary. In this connection we refer to the minutes of the discussion held by the University Grants Commission, State as well as NCTE legislatives. The conclusions of the deliberations were mentioned in paragraph 33 of the minutes, With regard to teacher-student ratio, it is decided as follows :
'......... Even though the norms stipulate 1:10 teacher-students ratio at present the norms has been relaxed as 1:12.5 and the revised strength based on this has been fixed for the Teacher Education Centres in this State. The State Government and other participants in the meeting has made a strong plea for enhancement of teacher-student ratio to minimum 1:20 in the circumstances prevailing in the State. The Chairman and members of the N. C. T. E., however wanted the matter to be further examined by the Norms Revision Committee in the light of 1:15 to 1:20 ratios prescribed by All-India Council to Technical Education.'
As per the minutes it is even suggested that if Government cannot pay for the additional teachers, even the aided colleges may be allowed to appoint teachers on a self financing basis for extra teachers so that required teachers can be appointed. It is also submitted that in Kerala there is only single option system whereas in other States there are double option system. It is the case of those institutions that if double option system is introduced, perhaps the staff strength fixed is reasonable, but in Kerala it can be fixed only taking into account that it is a single option system. In sub-para (viii) it is stated as follows:
'(viii) Feasibility of single option system for B. Ed. followed in Training Institutions in the Universities of Kerala will be taken into account when new norms are formulated by N. C. T. E.'
Since the aided private colleges have stated that they have implemented all directions of NCTE except in respect of pupil-teacher ratio and the only obstruction is regarding permission from State and University in this matter we are of the opinion that a policy has to be worked out with regard to the single option system in Kerala as well as the workload and the matter requires interference through Government also. It is also noticed that chapter 23 Clause 27 of the First Statute of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 provides the proportion of teachers to students, which reads as follows :
'27. Proportion of teachers to students: The proportion of teachers to students shall be in accordance with the workload fixed by the University.'
Therefore, if there is another ratio, they fear that their affiliation will be affected. Further, payment has to be made by the Government. So, Government's approval is also necessary. Further for UGC workload they have to work 60 hours. But, we are of the view that University is also bound by law. It is stated that proportion of teachers to students shall be in accordance with the workload fixed by the University. The University has to fix the workload as per law. The workload prescribed by the statutory regulations fixed by NCTE is the law, with regard to Teacher Education Institutions. Taking into account all these aspects a decision has to be arrived at by the University U. G. C. and Government together and that should be taken within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, the norms issued by NCTE as applicable should be strictly followed by all aided colleges in the next academic year onwards starting from 2004 as admissions during 2003 were already over. The provisional approval granted by NCTE in view of interim directions issued by this Court, considering the fact that those institutions are complying with all other norms and regulations issued by University and have the staff strength as approved by Government, is not applicable from next academic year starting from 2004 unless all NCTE norms are complied with. Standards of education cannot be further diluted at the behest of the Court.
6. All the three Universities who filed the petitions have established different teacher education centres for B. Ed. course and hundreds of students are studying there. With regard to the conditions of the University centres, it is submitted that in none of the university centres prescribed standards are maintained. For e.g., Ext. R2(b) produced shows that with regard to Kerala University Centre for Teaching Education at Anjal, regular teachers have not been appointed. Staff is appointed on temporary basis and consolidated fee is being paid. Teacher-pupil ratio is 1:33. No lab has been established. No proper accommodation is there. Staff is not appointed on regular basis and approved pay scales are not given. Similar is the report in other university centres also. In University of Kerala it conducts more than 12 university centres for giving teaching education. It is also submitted that university centres run by M. G. University offering teaching education have no prescribed standards. They have no permanent teachers. It is also submitted that even people without post-graduation are teaching. It is also pointed out that in Tripunithura centre even without any infrastructure the university centre is being functioned. Ext. R1 inspection report in O. P. No. 16855 of 1999 with respect to Calicut University shows that the building is not suitable to run B. Ed. Course and Teaching Education Centre at Kuduvayoor, Palakkad District had absolutely no prescribed facilities for running B. Ed. programme. There are no labs for Psychology, Education Technology and Work experience. Teachers are appointed on contract basis by the University. There is no proper library and not even a single journal is being subscribed to. There is no permanent faculty including the Assistant Director. The building is not suitable to conduct B. Ed. programme. The staff is not appointed on regular basis and approved pay scales are not paid. The above report would show that required facilities are not there in the centres of the University. In none of the centres run by all the three Universities there are proper lab, library, sufficient building and permanent teachers or adequate staff as required by NCTE norms.
7. With regard to the petitions filed by the University, the contention of the University is that the University centres where Teacher Education Courses are being offered need not follow NCTE regulation cannot be accepted at all. A University which is bound to maintain standards in educational institutions cannot dilute the norms and say that centres run by it need not have necessary minimum infrastructures and educational standards. In fact, this attitude of the Universities makes the degrees granted by it worthless and degenerates educational standards. The legal contention raised by the University is that University centres impart teacher training course are not 'institutions' as defined in the Act as University is separately defined and the provisions under the Act are not applicable to governing University Centres where teacher education is offered. Their contention is based on the Supreme Court decision in Bharathidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Education, AIR 2001 SC 2861. But that argument also cannot stand. In the above case the Supreme Court has considered the definition of 'technical institution' as defined under All India Council for Teachers Education Act, 1987. Technical Institution' was defined under Section 2(h) of the Act as follows :
''technical institution' means and institution, not being a University, which offers courses or programmes of technical education, and shall include such other institutions as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare as technical institutions.'
(underlining for emphasis)
Therefore, it can be seen that Universities were specifically excluded from the definition under that Act. Here, in the definition of 'institution' under Section 2(e) of the NCTE Act the Universities were not specifically excluded. Therefore, Universities are also included in the term 'institution'. The Universities cannot contend that they are above the law. Even though they insist that the affiliated institutions should comply with the procedure and prescribed standards, according to them, they are not bound to follow the prescribed standards. This will create an anomalous situation. University has to act as model. Learned counsel appearing for the University also submitted that this Court in W. A. No. 3233 of 2001 and connected cases State of Kerala v. Renjith, 2002 (1) Ker LT (SN) 9 following the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharathidasan's case held that the centres of Universities conducting technical education need not get affiliation. There what is stated is that for starting an institution University need not get prior permission from AICTE, that too considering the definition of 'technical institutions' under AICTE Act. It is true that for starling a technical course, University need not obtain permission from AICTE but University is bound to keep the standard prescribed by it. All the three Universities have separate centres at different places for giving teachers training to grant B. Ed. degree. Those centres are institutions run by the Universities and such centres are bound to maintain all standards prescribed by NCTE and they cannot go behind National Standards as NCTE Act is applicable through out India except in Jammu & Kashimr. It is true that University can award degree like B. Ed. or Ph.d. in teacher education and they need not get prior permission from the NCTE. But students who obtain such decree from the University centres will not entitled to get employment in any State or Central or University or aided establishments engaged in teaching students, unless the centres arc recognised by NCTE and courses are conducted as per NCTE norms. Unless they are recognised by NCTE as provided under Section 17(4), students who pass out from such centres cannot get employment in teaching post in the Government, University or in aided institutions. If University is continuing the course in those centres without recognition, while inviting applications for admission they should make it very clear in the advertisement itself that the Centre is not recognised by NCTE and, therefore, students who are admitted there for B. Ed., will not get employment in the Government, or University establishments or in other aided institutions as provided under Section 17(4) of the Act. Section 17(4) is already held to be valid by the Apex Court in Shah Goverdhan's case (AIR 2002 SC 3675) (supra). We also note that relief claimed in the original petition filed by the University includes issuance of a direction to NCTE to recognise B. Ed. Training Centres run by them, for e.g., prayers (ii) and (iii) in O. P. No. 16855 of 1999 filed by the University of Calicut are as follows:
(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus, order or appropriate direction commanding and compelling the respondents 1 and 2 to grant recognition to the 5 B. Ed. Training Centres run by the Calicut University at Calicut, Palakkad. Malappuram, Wayanad and Thrissur;
(iii) to issue an interim direction permitting the University to conduct B. Ed. courses in 5 Centres at Calicut, Palakkad, Malappuram, Wayanad and Thrissur for the academic year 1999-2000;'
How can this Court compel NCTE to recognise these centres and courses, if these centres offering these courses are not complying with norms and regulations legally framed by NCTE. It is for the NCTE to verify whether statutory regulations issued are complied with or not. Therefore, such prayers cannot be allowed. The benefit of provisional recognition granted is applicable only to students who were already admitted and undergoing studies.
8. Unaided institutions approached this Court with the complaint that even though the University Centres have no prescribed facilities, proper teachers, etc., they are compelled to comply with the norms of NCTE. It is also submitted that apart from compliance of NCTE norms, the University charged Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- per year as admission and affiliation fees respectively and now it has been raised to Rs. 75,000/-per year as admission fee and Rs. 10,000/-as affiliation fee. In the University centres also high fee is charged from the students. Universities have only commercial eyes and no regards for academic standards. At the same time, affiliated institutions are compelled to comply with the NCTE norms. Whether University Centres have facilities or not, the unaided institutions are bound to follow NCTE norms. They cannot say that they should be exempted from doing the same because University centres are lacking standards. It is true that proper action should be taken by NCTE with regard to all institutions or centres engaged in teaching education. Counsel for the Kerala University submitted that they want more time to make infrastructure to keep it up both the standards as prescribed by NCTE. Some of the centres were started ten years ago. Writ petitions itself were filed in 1999 and 2000. Even now these centres have not even a single permanent teacher or proper laboratories. No difficulty will be caused if students are not admitted in the next academic year in these centres, unless all the norms prescribed are complied with. Therefore, from the next academic year onwards they can conduct the B. Ed. course only after fulfilling all the norms prescribed by NCTE. The students who are getting admission from the academic year 2004 onwards in the University centres or other institutions which are not recognised by NCTE, will not get employment in view of Section 17(4) in any University, Central or State Governments or aided institutions. In view of Section 16 no institutions shall be affiliated to the University unless they have complied with NCTE norms and getting recognition from NCTE. The directions in this judgment will be applicable from the next academic year, i.e. academic year starting from 2004.
9. In O. P. No. 5684 of 2000 the complaint is that they were not given prescribed form of application for affiliation. That is a matter in the beginning when NCTE was come into force. Now the prescribed application forms are available. It is for the petitioner in O. P. No. 5684 of 2000 to apply and remit affiliation fee and get affiliated. That college also cannot conduct B. Ed. course in the next academic year without getting it recognised by NCTE.
All the petitions are disposed of.