The institution that is engaged or
interested in getting involved in imparting a course for training has to obey
the command of law in letter and spirit. There cannot be any deviation. But,
unfortunately, some of the institutions flagrantly violate the norms with
adamantine audacity and seek the indulgence of the court either in the name of
mercy or sympathy for the students or financial constraint of the institution
or they have been inappropriately treated by the statutory regulatory bodies.
None of this ground justice deviation. The Supreme Court said the High Court
putting the blame on the statutory authority has granted relief to the
respondent institution which is impermissible.
The Supreme Court
in National Council for
Teacher Education & Another Vs Venus Public Education Society & Others held:
“that without
recognition from the NCTE and affiliation from the university/examining body,
the educational institution cannot admit the students. An educational
institution is expected to be aware of the law. The students who take admission
are not young in age. They are graduates. They are expected to enquire whether
the institution has recognition and affiliation. If we allow ourselves to say
so, the institution had given admission in a nonchalant manner. Possibly, its
functionaries harboured the idea that they had an incomparable fertile mind.
The students who had taken admission possibly immersed with the idea that
ignorance is a bliss. It is also necessary to state that the institution had
the anxious enthusiasm to commercialize education and earn money forgetting the
factum that such a attitude leads to a disaster. The students exhibited
tremendous anxiety to get a degree without bothering for a moment whether their
effort, if any, had the sanctity of law. Such attitudes only bring nemesis. It
would not be wrong to say that this is not a case which put the institution or
the student to choose between Scylla and charybdis. On the contrary, both of
them were expected to be Argus-eyed. The basic motto should have been
“transparency”. Unfortunately, the institution betrayed the trust of the
students and the students, in a way, atrophied their intelligence. The
institution decidedly exhibited characteristics of carelessness. It seems that
they had forgotten that they are accountable to law. The students, while
thinking “vision of hope”, chose to play possum. The law does not countenance
either of the ideas. Hence, the plea propounded with anxiety, vehemence and
desperation on behalf of the appellant is not acceptable and, accordingly we
unhesitatingly repel the same”.
Prepared by: S. Hemanth
Advocate at Hemanth & Associates
