Acts And Regulations Do Not Require State NOC | Gauhati HC Declares University Notification Invalid | Orders Affiliation Processing As Per NCTE Norms
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Gauhati High Court, Single Bench of Justice Robin Phukan held that the requirement imposed by Gauhati University mandating a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the State Government as a precondition for granting affiliation to B.Ed. colleges is arbitrary and illegal. The Court concluded that such a directive is inconsistent with the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Regulations, 2014 and its subsequent amendments. The Bench directed Gauhati University to process the petitioner’s application for No Objection Certificate (NOC) for affiliation in accordance with the procedures laid down by the NCTE Act and the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations.
The Court declared that the action of insisting on a Government NOC, in absence of any such requirement under the governing statutory framework, violates the procedural scheme mandated by the NCTE. Accordingly, the notification dated 24.05.2022 issued by Gauhati University, based on its Executive Council resolution, was held to be arbitrary and was set aside. The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the University to process the application submitted by the petitioner college in March 2022, as per NCTE norms.
The petitioner, an educational institution established by HAMAK Rural Development Foundation in the district of Nagaon, Assam, has been engaged in imparting education since 2011. With a view to initiate teacher education programs, the institution applied to Gauhati University for issuance of No Objection Certificate (NOC) or consent for affiliation in respect of B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. 2nd year courses. The application was submitted in compliance with the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Regulations, 2014 on 23.03.2022 and received by the University on 28.03.2022.
Subsequent to the application, Gauhati University issued a notification dated 24.05.2022. This notification referred to an Executive Council Resolution dated 29.03.2022 (Resolution No. R/EC-02/2022/15(b)), stipulating that institutions must first secure a NOC from the State Government prior to applying to the University for a consent of affiliation.
The petitioner contended that this notification contravened the NCTE Regulations, 2014, as well as the binding judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (Civil Appeal No. 1859/2006), which held that a State Government NOC is not a prerequisite for a university to grant consent for affiliation.
Gauhati University, arrayed as Respondent No. 4, filed an affidavit in opposition asserting that the petitioner had previously instituted W.P.(C) No. 794/2023 challenging related communications dated 18.08.2022. The University further noted that the petitioner had also filed two other writ petitions, W.P.(C) Nos. 3782/2022 and 4212/2024, involving similar subject matters.
The University stated that the petitioner suppressed material facts and that on this basis alone the petition deserved dismissal. It was also submitted that the HAMAK Rural Development Foundation operates another institution—HAM-AK Rural College of Education—already affiliated with Gauhati University for B.Ed. programs, in the same locality and with the same Director.
Additionally, the University disclosed that it had received communications from the CID, Assam, relating to an FIR lodged as Nagaon Sadar P.S. Case No. 1845/2020 under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, and 34 IPC, implicating the Director and his brother, who were subsequently granted anticipatory bail. Due to these allegations, the University placed the petitioner college’s affiliation status in abeyance.
The petitioner, in its reply, denied allegations of suppression and asserted that the earlier writ petitions pertained to other courses (LL. B, B.A. LL. B, and B.Sc. B.Ed.). It also argued that the criminal case against the Director was irrelevant to the current dispute.
Justice Robin Phukan analysed the applicable statutory framework, including the NCTE Regulations, 2014 as amended in 2022. Referring to Regulation 5(3), the Court noted in "The application shall be submitted online electronically... along with the processing fee, as applicable, and scanned copies of required documents including no objection certificate issued by the concerned affiliating body..."
The Court stated that the Regulation mandates submission of NOC from the affiliating body, not from the State Government. Referring to Regulation 7(4), the Court recorded in "A written communication along with a copy of the application form submitted by the institution shall be sent by the office of Regional Committee to the State Government or the Union territory administration..."
It was further noted that any role of the State Government is limited to furnishing comments or objections during the processing of the application by the Regional Committee, not during the university’s issuance of an NOC.
The Court stated, "The Acts and Regulations, as discussed herein above, do not provide for obtaining any NOC from the State Government at the time of processing of application for No Objection Certificate by the affiliating body..."
Justice Phukan relied on precedents such as State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute, (1995) 4 SCC 104 and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2000) 5 SCC 231 to underscore that in areas occupied by central legislation, State laws or executive orders contrary to central statutes are unenforceable.
In particular, the Court recorded in "The National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (73 of 1993), is a central legislation... The State cannot enact any law or issue any Office Memorandum or Notification, contrary to the provision of the aforesaid Act and Regulations..."
On the notification issued by Gauhati University, the Court found, "...the act of respondent No. 4, insisting upon NOC from the State Government, at that stage, appears to be bereft of logic and not in conformity with the NCTE Act and Regulations..."
The Court clarified that although universities may issue policy directions, these must remain within the bounds of existing statutory provisions and cannot override central law.
The Court issued a writ of mandamus, stating, "the respondent No. 4 is directed to process the application dated 23.03.2022 received by the respondent No. 4, on 28.03.2022, filed by the petitioner college in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the NCTE Act and Regulations made there under and under the University Grants Commission [Affiliation Of Colleges By Universities] Regulations, 2009 within the time line prescribed under the NCTE Regulations, 2014."
The Court also recorded, "...the impugned Notification dated 24.05.2022 was issued thereafter. On receipt of the application, the respondent No. 4 ought to have processed the same following the procedure prescribed under Regulation 4.5 of the University Grants Commission [Affiliation of Colleges by Universities] Regulations, 2009..."
Further, the Court stated, "...the said notification is in conformity with the Gauhati University Act, NCTE Act and Regulations, yet in view of the discussion and finding... the said stand of respondent No. 4 cannot be accepted..."
In dismissing the respondent’s opposition, the Court concluded, "the decisions are contrary to existing legal framework, and arbitrary and illegal... the courts are bound to exercise its jurisdiction..."
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed with a clear directive for processing of the affiliation request per statutory norms.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.C. Buragohain, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. J. Tamuli
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Das, Mr. B. Gogoi, Mr. I. Alam, Mr. P.J. Phukan
Case Title: HAM-AK College of Higher Education v. State of Assam & Ors.
Neutral Citation: GAHC010029142024
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 821/2024
Bench: Justice Robin Phukan
