Kanya Gurukul College Of Education vs. National Council For Teacher Education

Facts

The petitioner, Kanya Gurukul College of Education, filed a writ petition challenging a Public Notice dated February 5, 2024, issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). The petitioner sought to quash the notice and a requirement within it for institutions transitioning from B.Sc. B.Ed./B.A. B.Ed. courses to the Integrated Teachers Education Programme (ITEP) to pay a fee of ₹1,77,000/-. The petitioner argued that the NCTE Act and Regulations did not permit charging such fees in this scenario. The petitioner later restricted its challenge solely to the fee requirement.

Held

The Court held that the Integrated Teachers Education Programme (ITEP) constitutes a "new course" within the meaning of Section 15(1) of the NCTE Act, irrespective of whether it is introduced by a new institution or an existing one transitioning from previous courses. The Court reasoned that the nomenclature "Integrated Teacher Education Programme" itself suggests a new course, and the infrastructure and requirements for ITEP are distinct. The Court found no justification for distinguishing between new and existing institutions in this regard, stating that Section 15(1) clearly envisages an application for permission by any recognized institution intending to start a new course. The use of the word "transition" was interpreted as a gradual movement towards the ITEP, not as an indication that it is not a new course. Consequently, the Court held that the NCTE was empowered by Rule 9 of the NCTE Rules to charge the prescribed fee of ₹1.5 lakhs plus GST (totaling ₹1.77 lakhs) for applications to start the ITEP. The challenge to the Public Notice and the fee requirement was therefore dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transition of existing institutions from B.Sc. B.Ed./B.A. B.Ed. courses to the Integrated Teachers Education Programme (ITEP) constitutes the introduction of a "new course" within the meaning of Section 15(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the transition to the ITEP curriculum was not a "new course" but a mere adoption of a new curriculum by institutions already offering integrated B.Sc. B.Ed./B.A. B.Ed. programmes. They argued that the NCTE Act permits charging fees only for recognition under Section 14, permission under Section 15, or appeals under Section 18, and this situation did not fall into those categories. They relied on minutes of NCTE General Body Meetings referring to "transition" to the ITEP curriculum. Respondent's arguments: The respondent (NCTE) argued that the ITEP is a "new course" as defined under Section 15(1) of the NCTE Act. They relied on Rule 9 of the NCTE Rules, 1997, which prescribes a fee of ₹1,50,000/- for applications under Section 15(1), which, with GST, amounts to ₹1,77,000/-. They asserted that the fee requirement was within the NCTE's jurisdiction.