B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE facts are tell-tale. The chronology of events leading to filing of these writ petitions would make it clear, beyond any doubt, that even the educational institutions are not spared of groupism and factional fights. One may be justified in entertaining a doubt as to whether these educational institutions are established for Imparting any education at all to the needy. Valuable material and mental resources are already spent by the rival groups to gain control over the educational institution in question. ( 2 ) THE events and facts may as well as provoke all the concerned to introspect as to the desirability of interlocutory interference in the matters relating to admission of students into educational institutions, grant of affiliation by the Universities and the conducting of examination. The interlocutory orders themselves more often than not create irreversible situations. ( 3 ) AN internecine warfare between two groups in the educational society is apparent from the facts and material made available on record. No holds bar fight between the two groups, one headed by G. V. Rami Reddy and another headed by B. Koteswar Rao to have their octopus grip on the affairs of the society goes on. In the process, significant contribution is made to the docket explosion in this Court. ( 4 ) WE shall now proceed to notice the relevant facts, which are not complex, but many. The St. Anthony Educational Society, Narasaraopet came into existence in the year 1988 with one Jayyanna Chowdhary as Its president. The Society submitted application dated 24-9-1988 to the Government of Andhra Pradesh for granting permission to it for establishing a college of Education at Narasaraopet, Guntur Distirct. The State Government rejected the said application on the ground of its policy decision taken not to grant any such permission for establishing a college of education. The Society filed a writ petition questioning the said order. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court. The matter ultimately went before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by an order dated 2-8-1995 directed the State Government to consider the application without referring to its policy decision and with reference to the position obtained as on the date of application, that is to say, on 24-9-1988. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court. The matter ultimately went before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by an order dated 2-8-1995 directed the State Government to consider the application without referring to its policy decision and with reference to the position obtained as on the date of application, that is to say, on 24-9-1988. The Government having considered the matter pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court rejected the application by an order dated 30-11-1995. The Society filed Contempt Case Nos. 194 and 195 of 1998 before the Supreme Court. On a letter dated 23-9-1996 from the Advocate on record, the Government revoked the orders issued in G. O. Ms. No. 434, dated 30-11-1995 and granted permission to the Society to establish a college of Education at Narasaraopet for the academic year 1996-97 with an intake of 160 seats subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions vide G. O. Ms. No. 240, Education (Training I) Department, dated 8-11-1996. Thus Society has established a college of education by name St. Mark NTR, GMKN and MRB. Ed. , College at Narasaraopet. ( 5 ) THE petitioner; thereafter, appears to have submitted an application to the Nagarjuna University on 26-11-1996 for grant of affiliation. On 9-12-1996, the petitioner submitted an application to the Commissioner and Director of School Education for grant of minority certificate. Even while the said applications were pending, the petitioner college appears to have admitted certain students without reference to the allotment of the candidates by the Convenor, Ed. , CET. The petitioner claims that the students belonging to the Christian minority and who appeared for the Ed. , CET 1996 alone were admitted into the college strictly in accordance with the Section 4 (1) of the A. P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act 5 of 1983), (for short the Capitation Fee Act ). In the meanwhile, the group led by B. Koteswar Rao filed O. S. No. 229 of 1996 for perpetual injunction on the file of the Principal Junior, Civil Judge, Narasaraopet against G. V. Rami Reddy, correspondent of the College. The learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was duly elected as President of the Society and in possession of the property of the Society. No relief was granted. The learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was duly elected as President of the Society and in possession of the property of the Society. No relief was granted. Said Kotewara Rao filed A. S. No. 44 of 1998 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet. The said appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 2-4-1999. ( 6 ) IN the meanwhile, Nagarjuna University announced the date of examination for B. Ed. candidates, to be held on 28-7-1997. The University, obviously, did not permit the students of the petitioner college to appear for the examination since there was no affiliation as such granted by the University to the college. The petitioner filed W. P. No. 14687 of 1997 and obtained an interim direction from this Court to permit the students of the petitioner college to sit for theory examinations of B. Ed. course to be held on 28-7-1997. It is interesting to notice that the Commissioner and Director of School Education and the Regional Joint Director of School Education were not impleaded as parties in the said writ petition. The petitioner college had chosen to implead only the Nagarjuna University. It is noteworthy that as on the date when the petitioner college obtained such direction from this Court, the College was not recognised as a minority Institution nor there was any affiliation granted in its favour of the Nagarjuna University. Two students who have undergone training in the petitioner College of Education during the year 1996-97 filed W. P. No. 21167 of 1997 against the Nagarjuna University and obtained orders from this Court on 10 -9-1997 directing the University to conduct practical examinations for B. Ed. students-consequent on their appearance for theory examinations held on 28-7-1997. College obtains an interim direction from this Court permitting the students of the petitioner college to sit for theory examinations of B. Ed. course to be held from 28-7-1997 and the students obtain an interim direction from this Court directing the University to conduct practical examinations consequent on their appearance for theory examinations held on 28-7-1997. Thus, the University was compelled under the interlocutory orders passed by this Court to hold theory and practical examinations to the students admitted into a College which had no affiliation from the University. Thus, the University was compelled under the interlocutory orders passed by this Court to hold theory and practical examinations to the students admitted into a College which had no affiliation from the University. The students, obviously availed the benefit of the interim order and appeared for the examinations. ( 7 ) IN the meanwhile, B Koteswara Rao claiming that he was elected as President of the Society on 25-4-1996 and that he has established another college of Education in pursuance of G. O. Ms. No. 240, dated 8-11-1996 under the name of St. Mark NTR College of Education filed W. P. No. 13450 of 1997 to direct the University to grant affiliation to the said College and to hold examinations for the candidates of the said College for the year 1996-97. Interestingly, the said Koteswar Rao obtained an interim order from this Court in the said writ petition permitting the students of his college to sit for the examination. The said Koteswar Rao also filed W. P. No. 19464 of 1999 challenging the Memo dated 11-7-1997 issued by the State Government requesting the Commissioner and Director of School Education to take further action and consider the request of the petitioner college for granting minority status certificate to the said college in the light of the interlocutory order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge referred to hereinabove. All the said writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by a common order dated 27-9-1997. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows :the authorities are directed to allot the students for B. Ed. , course 1997-98 to St. Mark N. T. R. G. M. K. N. and M. R. B. Ed. college tentatively and the Commissioner and Director of School Education the second respondent herein shall appoint a Special Officer to take over the institution for the purpose of administration and management as far as B. Ed. Course is concerned. He shall proceed with the admission in accordance with rules and also the Management of the Institution as far as this Course is concerned. The management of St. Mark N. T. R. G. M. K. N. and M. R. B. Ed. College shall render proper assistance to the Special Officer in this regard as and when required by him for carrying put his duties as directed above. The students are also permitted to appear for B. Ed. The management of St. Mark N. T. R. G. M. K. N. and M. R. B. Ed. College shall render proper assistance to the Special Officer in this regard as and when required by him for carrying put his duties as directed above. The students are also permitted to appear for B. Ed. course examination and their results shall be declared as and when they become due. The Principal District Munsifff, Narasaraopet is directed to dispose of the suit O. S. No. 229 of 1996 as expeditious has possible and pass appropriate orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The group of Mr. Koteswar Rao and Mr. Rami Reddy shall co-operate with the trial of the suit and they shall not take unnecessary adjournments whenever the case is listed for trial. If ultimately the suit dismissed the candidates who have been admitted in pursuance of these directions shall be transferred either to the colleges established by Mr. Koteswara Rao or Rami Reddy depending upon the decision of the Civil Court in this regard. It is further directed that for the students who have been permitted to prosecute B. Ed. Course 1996-97 in St. Mark N. T. R. College of Education and St. Mark N. T. R. G. M. K. N. and M. R. B. Ed. College, Narasaraopet, the practical examinations for the B. Ed. Course shall be conducted if not already conducted within a reasonable time and the results shall be published after the examinations are over. " ( 8 ) HOWEVER, a Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 6-11-1997 in W. A. No. 1172 of 1997 and Batch modified the order of the learned single Judge so far as it relates to the direction of appointment of Special Officer is concerned. In other respects, the order remained unaffected. The learned Principal District Munsiff was directed to dispose of the suit untrammelled by any of the observations made by the Court. ( 9 ) IN the meanwhile, the petitioner college by an application dated 5-9-1997 revived its request for granting minority status certificate for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98. The petitioner college as usually admitted the candidates for the year 1997-98 also. However, it is asserted that the college admitted the students from out of the candidates who appeared for 1997 Ed. The petitioner college as usually admitted the candidates for the year 1997-98 also. However, it is asserted that the college admitted the students from out of the candidates who appeared for 1997 Ed. CET in accordance with the Section 4 of the Capitation Fee Act, 1983. ( 10 ) THE Commissioner and Director of School Education by proceedings dated 25-11-1997 has rejected the application of the petitioner for issue of minority status certificate on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted his application along with the affiliation granted by the University. The Director of School Education by the proceedings dated 25-11-1997 directed the petitioner college to approach the Convener, Education Common Entrance Test, 1997 for allotment of the candidates for B. Ed. course, for the year 1997-98. The petitioner filed W. P. No. 31829 of 1997 against the order dated 25-11 -1997 relating to the allotment of the candidates. This Court granted interim stay of further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order therein dated 25-11-1997. ( 11 ) INTERIM orders galore! ( 12 ) THE petitioner college claims to have admitted all the 160 candidates belonging to Christian minority in Sept. , 1997 itself. In the meanwhile, the Director of School Education by an order dated 17-12-1997 requested the Registrar, Nagarjuna University not to allow the candidates admitted by the petitioner for B. Ed. , examination for the academic year 1997-98. The Director further directed the; Regional Joint Director to file a criminal complaint against the correspondent of the petitioner college for the irregularities committed by him in admission of the students. The petitioner challenged the said order in W. P. No. 2681, of 1998 and obtained interim order of suspension of the said proceedings. ( 13 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner submitted an application on 7-1-1998 to the Nagarjuna University for grant of affiliation. The petitioner also filed an application on 18-2-1998 to the Director of School Education for grant of minority status certificate. ( 14 ) IN the meanwhile, the National Council for Teacher Education in exercise of the power under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (Act 73 of 1993) (for short the NCTE Act ) granted recognition to the petitioners institution by proceedings dated 12-5-1998 for the year 1998-99 subject to compliance with the deficiencies noticed therein and submitting compliance report by 30-9-1998. ( 15 ) THE State Government in Memo dated 31-3-1998 issued notice and directed the petitioner to show cause as to why the penal provision contemplated under Rules should not be invoked against them on their refusal to admit candidates allotted by the Convener, Ed. CET to their institutions and consequences thereupon. The petitioner college submitted its explanation to the said show cause notice on 18-4-1998. In the meanwhile the Director of School Education requested the petitioner to furnish a copy of the affiliation for grant of minority status certificate by letter dated 2-5-1998. The petitioner college, in the meanwhile, obtained recognition from the National Council for Teacher Education for the year 1998-99. ( 16 ) THE State Government in Memo dated 5-6-1998 directed the petitioner to show cause as to why the penal provision containing in Section 21 (3) of the A. P. Education Act, 1982 (for short the Education Act ) should not lie invoked and the recognition granted to their educational Institution withdrawn in the public interest. In the show cause notice, it is alleged that the petitioner college refused to admit the students allotted by the Convener, Ed. CET in B. Ed. course for the academic year 1997-98. The Government also noticed that the application for grant of minority status certificate for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98 was rejected and the college is not affiliated to the Nagarjuna University. The petitioner submitted explanation to the show cause notice on 4-7-1998. In the explanation, it is inter alia stated that the college had already admitted B. Ed. students for the academic year 1997-98. The other allegations levelled in the show cause notice are denied. The petitioner claims that the admissions were made under the orders of this Court. The petitioner also requested the Government to take, the explanation already submitted also as explanation to the present show cause notice. The, Government after considering the explanations submitted by the petitioner on 18-4-1998 and 4-7-1998 passed the impugned order. The same is challenged in W. P. No. 7906 of 1999. ( 17 ) WE will advert to the question relating to the validity of the impugned G. O. and deal with the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appropriately a little later. The same is challenged in W. P. No. 7906 of 1999. ( 17 ) WE will advert to the question relating to the validity of the impugned G. O. and deal with the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appropriately a little later. ( 18 ) IT is required to notice that in the meanwhile the group led by B. Koteswar Rao filed W. P. No. 7789 of 2000 complaining the inaction on the part of the Government and Director of School Education in disposing of its application dated 17-11-1998 and reminder dated 15-3-2000 to permit them to make admissions for B. Ed. course. This Court by an order dated 28-4-2000 passed interim directions directing the Government to dispose of the application of the Society represented by B . Koteswar Rao. The writ petitioner on coming to know about the interim order passed by this Court, made a representation to the Government requesting them not to entertain any such application form St. Anthony Educational Society represented by B. Koteswar Rao. The petitioner college also brought to the notice Government about the pendency of W. P. No. 7906 of 1999 filed by it. ( 19 ) THE Government by its order in G. O. Ms. No. 171, Education/dated 16-12-2000 granted permission to, St. Anthony Educational Society represented by Koteswar Rao to establish a B. Ed. college. The same is questioned by the petitioner in W. P. No. 26114 of 2000. That is how both the writ petitions are taken up for disposal by this Court at the request of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and the learned Government Pleader for School Education. ( 20 ) WE shall first take up the contention as to whether the impugned G. O. Ms. No. 356, Education (Training-I) Department, dated 26-9-1998 withdrawing the permission accorded in G. O. Ms. No. 240, dated 8-11-1996 to the petitioner college suffers from any legal infirmity. ( 20 ) WE shall first take up the contention as to whether the impugned G. O. Ms. No. 356, Education (Training-I) Department, dated 26-9-1998 withdrawing the permission accorded in G. O. Ms. No. 240, dated 8-11-1996 to the petitioner college suffers from any legal infirmity. The Government after scrutiny and consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner came to the conclusion that the Management has caused severe inconvenience to the students allotted to the college by refusing admissions, which has dislocated the academic curriculum of those students compelling the Government to order for their reallocation to other institutions resulting-in delay in completion of their course in comparison with other students and the conduct of special examinations by the University, which entailed extra expenditure on the part of the exchequer. The Government also came to the conclusion that the management proceeded with admissions on its own accord in anticipation of affiliation and grant, of, minority status certificate. The rationale of the management in having admitted students on its own in anticipation of affiliation and grant of minority status certificate is held to be not acceptable to the Government. The Government came to the conclusion that the said admission had eventually led to a total breakdown of the regulatory mechanism of the Government. The plea taken by the writ petitioner that the pendency of W. P. No. 2681 of 1998 shall come in the way of taking further action under Section 21 (3) of the Education Act was not accepted by the Government. The Government upon appreciation of totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that it would be in public interest to withdraw the permission granted to the said institution and accordingly withdrawn the permission earlier granted under Section G. O. Ms. No. 240, dated 8-11-1996. ( 21 ) SRI E. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the Government erred in passing the impugned order withdrawing the permission accorded for establishing the college under Section 20 of the Education Act pursuant to the notice to show cause as to why the action should not be taken under sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Education Act for withdrawal of recognition granted to the college. It is contended that the show cause notice relates to propose action for withdrawal of recognition granted to the college and not for withdrawn the permission accorded for establishing the college. It is submitted that the impugned order withdrawing the permission is without any show cause, notice and, therefore, violative of principles of natural Justice. ( 22 ) IT is also contended that the Government has not power or Jurisdiction to pass the order under sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Education Act as the provisions of Section 21 of the Education Act have no application to the college of Education since the Government has never passed any order of recognition to any of the colleges of Education in the State. ( 23 ) IT is submitted that, at any rate, there is no power available with the Government either for withdrawal of the permission or recognition after the commencement of the NCTE Act. It is contended that the Government took into consideration the remarks of Director of School Education and the observations of the Lokayukta without furnishing copies of the same to the petitioner and such consideration is illegal, void and offending the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the college had not committed any illegality in admitting the students in anticipation of grant of affiliation by the University. The very allotment of the candidates by the Convener in Nov. 1997 was wholly arbitrary and unjustified, since the petitioner college had already admitted the candidates and filled up all seats with Christian candidates that have passed Ed. CET and applied to the petitioner college for admission. ( 24 ) IT is true that In the show cause notice dated 31-3-1998 and as well as in show cause notice dated 5-6-1998 there is no proposal to withdraw the permission granted to the Society as such, But the Government vide its show cause notice dated 5-6-1998 required the petitioner to show cause as to why the recognition granted to the educational institution should not be withdrawn in the public interest. Except the permission granted earlier in G. O. Ms. No. 240, dated 8-11-1996, there is no further recognition as such granted by the Government to the petitioner college under Section 21 of the Education Act, The Government, obviously. Intended to withdraw the permission earlier granted to the petitioner college under Section 20 of the Education Act. Except the permission granted earlier in G. O. Ms. No. 240, dated 8-11-1996, there is no further recognition as such granted by the Government to the petitioner college under Section 21 of the Education Act, The Government, obviously. Intended to withdraw the permission earlier granted to the petitioner college under Section 20 of the Education Act. But by inadvertence in the show cause notice, the Government appears to have required the petitioner to show cause as to why the recognition should not be withdrawn. This aspect of the matter would be clear from the very explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 5-6-1998. The petitioner in his explanation Inter alia states that"withdrawing recognition to my institution is not in public Interest, permission was granted to our Society to establish a B. Ed. College at Narasaraopet is in public interest. Such permission cannot be withdrawn on the alleged stary lapses on the part of my institution. ,,,. ,,, Instead of taking such drastic steps of withdrawing the permission, which is not, in the public interest. "even the petitioner also understood the proposal to withdraw the recognition as proposal to withdraw the permission earlier granted by the Government. In the reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner never raised any objection by contending that Section 21 of the Education Act has no application to the college of Education since the Government has never granted any such recognition to any of the College of Education in the State. The submission that the order withdrawing the permission accorded for establishing a college is without any notice is thus unsustainable. ( 25 ) THE power to grant permission for establishment of educational institutions includes the power to withdraw such permission. The petitioner is clearly put on notice about the irregularities and contraventions committed by it ever since it came into existence. The permission granted to the petitioner to establish the college is not an unconditional one. The permission granted is subject to the fulfillment of the conditions mentioned therein. One of the conditions relates to admissions into B. Ed. course in the college. The condition requires that all admissions into B. Ed. course in the college shall be through Common Entrance Test conducted by the University. The permission granted is subject to the fulfillment of the conditions mentioned therein. One of the conditions relates to admissions into B. Ed. course in the college. The condition requires that all admissions into B. Ed. course in the college shall be through Common Entrance Test conducted by the University. One of the conditions mandates that the management shall fulfill all other conditions imposed by the Government and University from time to time before the admission of students in the Institution. ( 26 ) IT is interesting to notice that the government in its order dated 8-11-1996 while granting permission to establish the college stipulated that all the requirements (conditions) shall be complied by the management positively within a period of not exceeding six months, failing which appropriate action under S. 21 of the Education Act will be taken. A reading of the order dated 8-11-1996 would make it clear as though the Government granted permission as well as the recognition to the petitioner s institution simultaneously under G. O. Ms. No. 240, dated 8-11-1996. ( 27 ) IN the circumstances, in my considered opinion, the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The permission granted for establishing the institution has been rightly withdrawn. The petitioner is clearly put on notice even at the threshold while granting permission to establish the institution that failure to comply with the conditions stipulated in the order would entail appropriate action under S. 21 of the Education Act. That is how the proceedings are initiated against the petitioner under S. 21 of the Education Act also. The show cause notice and impugned order are composite in nature. Obviously, the petitioner also understood them in the same manner as is evident from his explanation referred to hereinabove. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned senior counsel in this regard. ( 28 ) THE second contention relates to Jurisdiction of the Government to pass the impugned order. The learned senior counsel contends that the Government had the power under S. 20 of the Education Act to grant permission to establish a college and the same is not available after passing of the NCTE Act. The NCTE Act received assent of the President on 29/12/1993, but came into force on 1-7-1995. The learned senior counsel contends that the Government had the power under S. 20 of the Education Act to grant permission to establish a college and the same is not available after passing of the NCTE Act. The NCTE Act received assent of the President on 29/12/1993, but came into force on 1-7-1995. Section 14 of the NCTE Act deals with the recognition of an institution offering a course or training in teacher education. It mandates that every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day has to obtain recognition under the NCTE Act. Once such recognition is granted, every examining body is required to grant affiliation to the Institution. In St. Mary s Educational Society v. Government of A. P. 2000 (3) ALT 95 this Court while considering the relative provisions of the NCTE Act as well as the A. P. Education Act observed :the State Government s jurisdiction to grant permission for establishing educational institutions including the institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education is in no way affected so far as it relates to making of an assessment for providing such educational facilities to the people in the locality. The State Government s role is now mainly confined to and concerned with the aspect relating to the need for establishment of institutions offering or intending to offer a course of training in teacher education. The State Government is still entitled to make an assessment about the need for establishment of such institutions offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education. The State Government s Jurisdiction and authority in this regard is in no way denuded by the subsequent NCTE Act. This much is clear. " ( 29 ) THE petitioner herein obtained permission from the Government on 8-11-1996 to establish a B. Ed. College for the academic year 1996-97 after the NCTE Act had come into force on 1-7-1995. If the petitioner s argument is to be accepted, the Government had no Jurisdiction to grant any permission to establish B. Ed. College on the day when it had granted permission to the petitioner to establish such college. The petitioner, obviously, cannot be an aggrieved person if such permission has been withdrawn by the Government under the impugned order. If the petitioner s argument is to be accepted, the Government had no Jurisdiction to grant any permission to establish B. Ed. College on the day when it had granted permission to the petitioner to establish such college. The petitioner, obviously, cannot be an aggrieved person if such permission has been withdrawn by the Government under the impugned order. The Government under the impugned order had merely withdrawn whatever permission that has been granted to the petitioner-college. The provisions of the NCTE Act would in no way affect the State Government s jurisdiction to withdraw such permissions granted by it. Such withdrawal, perhaps, would be in conformity with the provisions of the NCTE Act. It is needless to state that such withdrawal of the permission would in no manner affect the jurisdiction conferred upon the Council under the NCTE Act In the matter of granting recognition and withdrawal thereof to the petitioner college. The permission granted by the NCTE is only for one academic year, that is to say, 1998-99. ( 30 ) THE next question relates to the Government taking into consideration the report of the Lokayukta and remarks of the Director of School Education for passing of the impugned order. It is contended that the Government without supplying a copy of the report of the Lokayukta and remarks of the Director of School Education ought not to have relied upon the same for passing the impugned order. From the averments made in the counter-affidavit, it is clear that one Chandra Mohan made a complaint before the Lokayukta alleging that the petitioner college demanded capitation fee and on failure denied the admission though he is a rank holder and entitled for a seat in the college. The petitioner college is impleaded as one of the respondents in the said complaint. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not aware of any proceedings before the Lokayukta. At any rate, that is not even one of the factors taken into consideration for passing the impugned order. There is only a reference to the report of the Lokayukta. The order is not based on the said reports. The State Government and the Director of School Education are aware that the petitioner management admitted the students on its own in anticipation of affliction and grant of minority status certificate. There is only a reference to the report of the Lokayukta. The order is not based on the said reports. The State Government and the Director of School Education are aware that the petitioner management admitted the students on its own in anticipation of affliction and grant of minority status certificate. That aspect appears to have been highlighted in the report of the Lokayukta. The reference to the report of the Lokayukta and remarks of the Director of School Education had not resulted in any prejudice as such to the petitioner. Mere non-communication of the said reports would not be violative of principles of natural justice in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is no ground to set aside the impugned order, unless it is further pleaded and established that non-communication of the said reports had resulted in any prejudice to the case of the petitioner. There is no such plea and proof. (For the proposition see : Allgarh Muslim University v. Mansoor All Khan, AIR 2000 SC 2783 : 2000 All LJ 2436 ). This contention is also without any substance. ( 31 ) NOW let us proceed to see the conduct of the petitioner-college apart from its favourite pastime of indulging in luxurious litigation by filing spate of writ petitions. The fact remains that the petitioner admitted the students into the college during the year 1997-98 without reference to the allotment made by the Convener, Ed. CET-1997. The admission of students into private institutions shall be on the basis of ranking as signed in the common entrance test. The Convener has to allot the students according to the merit and ranking. It is noteworthy that as on the date when the petitioner college admitted the students directly into the college had no affiliation from the concerned University. There was no minority status certificate granted by the competent authority. The petitioner college assumed to itself as if it is a minority educational institution and proceeded to admit the students without any authority of law. Such admission is contrary to one of the terms and conditions subject to which the permission has been granted to the petitioner college under G. O. Ms. No. 240, Education, dated 8-11-1996. However, the students were permitted to write examinations under the interim orders passed by this Court. Such admission is contrary to one of the terms and conditions subject to which the permission has been granted to the petitioner college under G. O. Ms. No. 240, Education, dated 8-11-1996. However, the students were permitted to write examinations under the interim orders passed by this Court. The institution survived not on its own merits, but on the oxygen supplied under various ex parte interlocutory orders granted by this Court from time to time. We have already noticed the interlocutory orders galore. ( 32 ) THE fact remains that the petitioner-college refused to admit the candidates numbering 123 allotted by the Convener for the academic year 1997-98. All those candidates were re-allotted to other educational institutions and in the process the students were put to inconvenience. The plea of the petitioner that there is nothing illegal on the part of the management of the petitioner college in admitting the students in anticipation of affiliation and grant of minority status certificate is totally untenable and unsustainable. Having violated all the norms and statutory provisions, it doesn t lie in the mouth of the petitioner to advance such frivolous and misconceived pleas. The Institution does not become a minority institution by just naming it to be so. The institution has to be treated for all purposes as a non-minority institution in the absence of a valid certificate granted by the competent authority recognising the same to be a minority Institution. No admissions into the institution could have been made by the management directly without any allotment as such from the Convener, Ed. CET. The management of the petitioner college, on the other hand, refused to admit the students allotted into the institution by the Convener. ( 33 ) THE petitioner committed the same irregularity of having admitted the students directly into the institution during the academic year 1996-97 without reference to the allotment of the candidates by the Convener, Ed. CET. The petitioner obtained interim orders from this Court without impleading the Commissioner and Director of School Education and Regional Joint Director of School Education in W. P. No. 14687 of 1997. Undoubtedly, the petitioner made all possible efforts to overreach it and abused the legal process. ( 34 ) IT is thus clear that the petitioner-college admitted the students into the college by its own even though it had no affiliation from the University. Undoubtedly, the petitioner made all possible efforts to overreach it and abused the legal process. ( 34 ) IT is thus clear that the petitioner-college admitted the students into the college by its own even though it had no affiliation from the University. The petitioner college treated itself as a minority Institution and on that basis admitted the so-called minority students into the institution directly without obtaining any minority status certificate. The conduct of the petitioner speaks for itself. Such conduct disentitles it from granting any relief. ( 35 ) THE decision of the government in withdrawing the permission/recognition perfectly is in accordance with law. It does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Public interest is paramount consideration. The State Government rightly acted in the public interest. It is well settled that the Court discharging its functions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is also a Court of equity. Writs in the nature of Mandamus and Certiorari are issued to uphold the rule of law and prevent the miscarriage of justice. No person invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India shall be permitted to take advantage of the strategies and devices for getting relief from this Court. ( 36 ) IN W. P. No. 26114 of 2000 the petitioner impugns the G. O. Ms. No. 171, Education (SE. TRG. I) Department, dated 16-12-2000 under which the first respondent granted permission to St. Anthony Educational Society, Narasaraopet, Guntur District represented by B. Koteswar Rao to run a B. Ed. , college from the academic year 2000-2001 subject to certain conditions. We need not once again refer to the facts and inter se disputes between the two groups; one led by G. V. Rami Reddy and other by B. Koteswar Rao. The governmental order speaks as though this Court directed the respondent-Government to grant such permission to run a B. Ed. college by the management represented by B. Koteswar Rao. This Court while directing the notice before admission in W. P. No. 7789 of 2000 merely directed the Government to pass orders on the application filed by the petitioner therein (B. Koteswar Rao) on 15-3-2000 pending further orders. A direction to consider the application does not amount to directing the Government to grant permission. It is not that the Government is not aware of such basic and fundamental principle in law. A direction to consider the application does not amount to directing the Government to grant permission. It is not that the Government is not aware of such basic and fundamental principle in law. The government merely took advantage of the direction to consider the application and granted permission to run B. Ed. College in a casual and mechanical manner. The Government acted in the manner as it is bound to grant permission to run a B. Ed. college either by the group led by G. V. Rami Reddy or B. Koteswar Rao. The impugned order granting permission to run the B. Ed. College from the academic year 2000-2001 would read as if the Government has been adjudicating the rival claims for establishing and running the B. Ed. college. The parameters of consideration as is required under the provisions of the Education Act are thrown to winds. ( 37 ) THE issue need not further detain us and the matter has to be disposed of in the light of the provisions of the NCTE Act, to which we have already referred in detail. The NCTE Act has come into force on 1-7-1995. The National Council for Teacher Education under the NCTE Act is exclusively conferred with the jurisdiction to grant recognition under the NCTE Act and makes it obligatory for every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education to apply for and obtain such recognition from the Council. As held by this Court in St. Mary s Educational Society (supra) the position in the matter of according permission and recognition for establishing a college of Education is radically altered after the commencement of the NCTE Act. The role of the State Government is minimized in the matter of establishing educational Institutions offering a course or training in teacher education. The State Government s role is now confined only to grant of No Objection Certificate. ( 38 ) THE State Government could not have straightway granted permission to run the B. Ed. College. It is required to notice that the State Government suitably formulated its policy after commencement of the NCTE Act and accordingly framed the guidelines covering the entire gamut relating to the grant of No Objection Certificate by the State Government vide G. O. Ms. No. 398. Education, dated 4-12-1997. College. It is required to notice that the State Government suitably formulated its policy after commencement of the NCTE Act and accordingly framed the guidelines covering the entire gamut relating to the grant of No Objection Certificate by the State Government vide G. O. Ms. No. 398. Education, dated 4-12-1997. The State Government s order itself recognises that the State Government is invested with the power only to issue No Objection Certificate. ( 39 ) BUT strangely enough, in the instant case, the State Government granted permission to run B. Ed. College to the 6th respondent herein. It is only the National Council for Teacher Education that is competent to grant such permission. ( 40 ) SRI S. Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th respondent, perhaps, to overcome the legal difficulty sought to contend that the permission granted by the first respondent-Government to run the B. Ed. , college under the impugned Government order may be treated as No Objection Certificate granted by the State Government. The submission is totally misconceived. The Government under G. O. Ms. No. 398 dated 4-12-1997 constituted a State Level Standing Committee to assess the educational needs of the locality and to receive and scrutinise the applications and for issue of No Objection Certificate. Various guidelines are provided as to how the applications are to be invited, scrutinised and processed by the State Level Standing Committee for the purpose of Issuing No Objection Certificate. It is not the case of the State Government that what is granted to the 6th respondent is only a No Objection Certificate under G. O. Ms. No. 398, dated 4-12-1997. No Objection Certificate as such could not have been granted to the 6th respondent herein without following the procedure prescribed in G. O. Ms. No. 398, dated 4-12-1997. ( 41 ) THE government s decision granting permission under the impugned order and directing the 6th respondent to fulfill certain conditions is wholly ultra vires. The Government has no say whatsoever for making any assessment about the adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory, etc. , as they are within the exclusive domain of the National Council for Teacher Education. The Government has no say whatsoever for making any assessment about the adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory, etc. , as they are within the exclusive domain of the National Council for Teacher Education. The State Government s role, if any, now is mainly confined and concerned to the aspect relating to the need for establishment of institutions offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education. It is entitled to make assessment about the need for establishment of such institution, Nothing more. ( 42 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order in G. O. Ms. No. 171, Education, dated 16-12-2000 is set aside. ( 43 ) WITH the result, neither the group led by G. V. Rami Reddy is entitled to run any college of Education in the name of St. Mark NTR GMKN and MR B. Ed. College nor the group led by B. Koteswar Rao is entitled to run any college of Education in the name of St. Mark NTR B. Ed. College at Narasaraopet, Guntur District. ( 44 ) IT shall always be open to the State Government to act in accordance with its own scheme formulated in G. O. Ms. No. 398, Education, dated 4-12-1997 and decide as to whether still there is any need for establishing any College of Education at Narasaraopet and grant of a No Objection Certificate thereof. ( 45 ) IN the result, W. P. No. 7906 of 1999 shall stand dismissed with costs and W. P. No. 26114 of 2000 is allowed with costs. Order accordingly.