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”.