Judgment S.N.Jha, J. 1. As similar dispute is involved in these 28 writ petitions, they have been heard together. The dispute relates to five Teachers Training Colleges. By the impugned orders their recognition/affiliation has been cancelled or withdrawn and the examinations conducted by them as well as the degrees etc. awarded to the students at such examination have been cancelled. The petitioners seek quashing of those orders and consequential reliefs. CWJC No. 5430 of 1999 is by one of the colleges, namely, the National Teachers Training College, Arer, district Madhubani. The remaining 27 cases are by the students of (i) R. A. College of Education, Kunjauri, Alamnagar, district Madhepura, being CWJC Nos. 10687 of 1999 and 7712 of 2000, (ii) S. M. Zareef College of Education, Darbhanga being CWJC No. 7515 of 2000, (iii) S. Wakil Ahmad Teachers Training College, Darbhanga being CWJC No. 8417 of 2000 and (iv) Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed. College, Rampura, Katihar, being CWJC Nos. 7448, 7482, 7422, 7555, 7564, 7663, 7668, 7686, 7697, 7799, 7805, 7859, 7867, 8245, 8343, 8429, 8807, 8835, 8890, 8922, 8923 of 2000 and CWJC No. 640 of 2001. 2. The case of National Teachers Training College, Arer, is that it was established by a registered society for the minority community in 1987. On 7.7.87 it applied to the State Government for recognition under the Bihar Non-Government Physical Training Colleges and NonGovernment Teachers Training Colleges and Non-Government Primary Teachers Training Colleges (Control and Regulations) Act, 1982 (Bihar Act 21 of 1982) (hereinafter referred to as the State Act). During the pendency of the application the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (Act No. 3 of 1993) (hereinafter referred to as the NCTE Act) came into force. On 1.9.97 the management of the college requested the State Government to forward the application to the Eastern Regional Council at Bhubneshwar constituted under the said Act. However, the State Government constituted an Inspection Team which held inspection of the College on 22.8.97 and on the basis of the report dated 25.8.97 submitted by it, granted recognition with effect from 1987-88 on 25.11.97. On 4.12.97 the decision was communicated to the L. N. Mithila University and the Regional Committee of Bhubneshwar. The University notified the decision of the State Government on 11.12.97. On 4.12.97 the decision was communicated to the L. N. Mithila University and the Regional Committee of Bhubneshwar. The University notified the decision of the State Government on 11.12.97. On 23.12.97 it informed the Secretary/Principal of the College that in the light of the aforesaid orders/notification the Vice Chancellor was pleased to permit 150 students each for sessions 1987-88 to 1995- 96 to appear at the B.Ed examination 1997. The number of students allowed to appear was raised to 250 later by the Vice Chancellor from the session 1994-95 vide Controller of examination memo dated 9.1.98. On 6.3.98 the Regional Committee allowed the college to continiue pending disposal of application for recognition. The recognition by the Regional Committee finally came on 23.12.99 for the session year 1999-2000 with annual intake of 240 students. On 18.5.99 the State Government informed the University that the letter dated 4.12.97 (supra) purporting to be communication of the government order regarding recognition of the college had been found to be forged by the Cabinet Vigilance Department; a criminal case being Vigilance P.S. Case-No. 8 dated 11.5.98 had been registered in this regard, and accordingly the said government order dated 4.12.97 was cancelled. Upon receipt of the said communication on 25.5.99 the University issued the impugned order cancelling the recognition/affiliation of the college, further cancelling the admission of the students, the examination and degrees, certificates, marksheets etc. awarded on the basis of those examination. 3. With respect to R. A. College of Education, Kunjauri, Alamnagar, foundantional facts regarding the establishment etc. of the college have not been mentioned in the two writ petitions, understandably because the petitioners are students. They have stated facts about their appearing at the examination conducted by the college. In the supplementary affidavit filed in CWJC No. 10687 of 1999, however, it has been stated that on 14.1.97 the college was granted provisional affiliation for sessions 1992-93 to 1995-96 by the Vice Chancellor of B.N. Manda University under which the college falls. The petitioners claim to have take their admission during the period of affiliation. Their degrees, certificates etc. have been cancelled on 1.9.99 as the college was found to be not recognised either under the State Act or the Central Act i.e. NCTE Act. 4. The petitioners claim to have take their admission during the period of affiliation. Their degrees, certificates etc. have been cancelled on 1.9.99 as the college was found to be not recognised either under the State Act or the Central Act i.e. NCTE Act. 4. As regards S. M. Zareef College of Education, Darbhanga which is the subject of CWJC No. 7515 of 2000 it has been stated that the college was established in the year 1990 by a Muslim Minority Society called Rauf Muslim Jamia. On request by the management of the college an Inspection Team made inspection on 5.10.97 and submitted favourable report. As decision in the matter of affiliation and recognition were not being taken some of the students of the college came to this Court in CWJC No. 617/98 which was disposed of on 28.1.98 with a direction to the University to take a decision. The matter was thereafter placed before the Affiliation Committee of the L. N. Mithila University which constituted a sub-committee and on the basis of its report and recommendation of the Affiliation Committee the Vice Chancellor issued affiliation order for the Sessions 1995-96 and 1996-97 on 9.2.98. The Syndicate later approved the decision of the Vice Chancellor. The Eastern Regional Committee established under the NCTE Act 1983 also later granted recognition on 28.3.98 for the Session 1997-98. However, by notification dated 29.2.2000 the University cancelled the admissions, examinations, degrees and certificates etc. of the students. 5. With respect to S. Wakil Ahmad Teachers Training College, Darbhanga, which is subject to CWJC 8417 of 2000 the case of the petitioners is that it was granted provisional affiliation by the ViceChancellor of L N. Mithila University for Sessions 1985-86 to 1996-97 on 13.7.98 in the light of orders of this Court referred to in the writ petition. On 20.10.98 it submitted application before the Eastern Regional Committee, Bhubneshwar for recognition pursuant to which the Regional Committee informed the L N. Mithila University that the application filed by the college for recognition was under consideration and as the decision of the Council regarding recognition will be effective from academic session 1999-2000, the University may take necessary action about continuing affiliation for the sessions 1997-98 and 1998-99 as per the University rules and norms. It is said that finally on 23.2.99 the Regional Committee issued order granting provisional recognition for the academic year 1999-2000 with intake of 120 students but, later, the recognition was withdrawn by it only on the ground that a criminal case had been instituted by the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, pursuant to request made by the University in that regard. On 17.2.2000 the University issued the impugned order cancelling the admissions, examinations, degrees/certificates etc. of the students of the college. 6. Necessary facts relating to Muslim Minority Ahmadia College, Rampura, Katihar, falling (sicunder?) B. N. Mandal University may be noticed from CWJC No. 7478 of 2000. The college was granted temporary recognition by the State Government on 16.9.96 for the sessions 1987-88 to 1991-92 and thereafter permanent recognition for the sessions 1992-93 onwards on 12.6.97. Pursuant to the government orders the University also granted permanent affiliation for the session 1992-93 on 16.7.97. The Eastern Regional Committee initially by letter dated 20.5.98 allowed to college the continue as before as per the rules of the University, it finally granted provisional recognition upto 1998-99 which is evident from the list of recognised/allowed to continue colleges circulated by public notice dated 8.10.98. However, on 19.5.2000 the admissions, examinations, degrees etc. of the students were cancelled on the ground of pendency of criminal case. 7. The case of the respondents with respect to the colleges in question may now be stated. With respect to the National Teachers Training College, Arer, both the State Government and the L. N. Mithila University have filed affidavits. The Government in its affidavit has stated that in course of enquiry conducted by the Investigation Bureau of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department on the direction of the Chancellor, the recognition order dated 4.12.97 was found to be forged. On the basis of the enquiry report a criminal case being Vigiance P.S. Case No. 8/99 has been instituted. It is said that in fact the College did not exist before 1997. The State Government has nothing to do in the matter of recognition except to give no objection if asked for by the Regional Committee empowered to grant/refuse recognition. The inspection held on 22.8.97 by a team constituted by the Government was invalid and its recommendations had no legal effect. It is said that on 31.3.2000 the Regional Committee cancelled the degree etc. The inspection held on 22.8.97 by a team constituted by the Government was invalid and its recommendations had no legal effect. It is said that on 31.3.2000 the Regional Committee cancelled the degree etc. granted by the University on the basis of the impugned examination. The case of the University as regards this College is that it was established without prior permission of the Government in terms of Section 2(1) of the State Act. It does not have necessary infrastructure, such as land, building etc. Mass irregularities were committed in admitting the students for 10 academic sessions namely, 1987-88 to 1996-97 together on 5.6.98. In any view, as the Government has cancelled the recognition, the University is bound by the decision of the State Government. 8. With respect to R.A. College, Kunjauri the University has filed counter affidavit in both CWJC Nos. 10687 of 1999 and 7712 of 2000. In the former it has been stated that the College did not obtain any permission to establish from the State Government under the State Act. It does not fulfil the criteria laid down in notification no. 1107 dated 25.11.87 issued under Section 5 of the State Act. On 16.10.93 the State Government had issued press communique pursuant to direction of the Supreme Court in SLP(C) no. 6421/87 mentioning the names of the Minority Teachers Training Colleges in respect of which the State Government had rejected the proposal for recognition/permission for the benefit of the general public vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit in which the name of the College was mentioned at SI. No. 49. As the College did not enjoy recognition from the Regional Committee under the NCTE Act the degree etc. obtained by the petitioners were invalid under Section 17(4) of that Act. In the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No. 7712 of 2000 it has been stated that a three-member Committee comprising of the pro Vice-Chancellor Regional Deputy Director of Education, Koshi Division and Principal, Purnea College was constituted which detected mass scale irregularities in the matter of admission, holding of classes, infrastructure etc. On the direction of the Chancellor the Investigation Bureau of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department conducted enquiry and ultimately lodged criminal case being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 18/99 in which many persons including the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar etc. were arrested on 24.6.99. The result of the Vigilance inquiry was communicated to the Vice-Chancellor on 19.8.99. On the direction of the Chancellor the Investigation Bureau of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department conducted enquiry and ultimately lodged criminal case being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 18/99 in which many persons including the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar etc. were arrested on 24.6.99. The result of the Vigilance inquiry was communicated to the Vice-Chancellor on 19.8.99. The State Government also wrote letter to the Vice-Chancellor. On 1.9.99 the degrees etc. were cancelled. 9. With respect to S. Wakil Ahmad College, Darbhanga the Government in its affidavit has stated that the College did not obtain permission from the State Govenment under the State Act nor it enjoyed recognition by the NCTE. In fact, from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No. 10687/99 referred to above, it appears that this College was one of the colleges whose proposal for permission/recognition stood rejected by the State Government vide SI. no. 52 of the list.) The order of the Vice-Chancellor, dated 13.7.98 purporting to grant temporary affiliation was not valid. The Vigilance inquiry conoucted at the instance of the Chancellor revealed that the alleged affiliation was fraudulent and not in accord with the order of this Court in CWJC No. 5040/97. A criminal case being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 35/99 has been instituted. Apart from the Vigilance enquiry, the enqui ry conducted at the University level also disclosed that the students of as many as 12 academic sessions namely, 1985-86 to 1996-97 appeared in the joint examination in one go. The enquiry also revealed that the students were fake and ineligible. The College does not have necessary infrastructure. Details in this regard have been mentioned in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit. 10. No counter affidavit has been filed in CWJC No. 7515/2000 in the case of S. M. Zarif College of Education, Darbhanga. 11. The counter affidavit of the respondents in the case of Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed. College, Rampura is on the same lines as in the case of R.A. College, Kunjauri referred to above. With respect to this College also after preliminary inquiry by the Investigation Bureau of Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 12/2000 has been instituted. 12. It would be apposite at this stage to mention that Section 2 of the State Act prohibits establishment of teachers training college etc. leading to award of degree, diploma, certificate etc, by a University etc, without permission of the State Government. 12. It would be apposite at this stage to mention that Section 2 of the State Act prohibits establishment of teachers training college etc. leading to award of degree, diploma, certificate etc, by a University etc, without permission of the State Government. Section 3 qualifies that the provisions of the Act are not to apply to such teachers training college etc. which have been granted affiliation. The procedure relating to grant of permission has been laid down in notification no. 1107 dated 25.11.87 issued under the said Act, which is a self-contained law unto itself on the subject. It is not necessary to notice the provisions of the said notification/rules for disposal of these cases. In 1993 the Parliament enacted the NCTE Act with a view of achieving planned and coordinate development of the teacher education system throughout the country, the regulations and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teachers education system and for matters connected therewith. The Act confers exclusive power on the Regional Committee established under section 20 of the Act to recognise institutions offering course and training in teacher education it came into force on 17.8.95. The provisions of the Act so far as relevant may be set out at one place as under : "14. Recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education. (1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations : Provided that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. (2) ... (3) ... (4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teacher education under sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government. (2) ... (3) ... (4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teacher education under sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government. (5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3). (6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under sub-section (4),- (a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or (b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused. 16. Affiliation body to grant affiliation after recognition or permission by the Council.Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no examining body shall, on or after the appointed day, (a) grant affiliation whether provisional or otherwise to any institution; or (b) hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a recognised institution, unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned under Section 14 or permission for a course or training under Section 15. 17. Contravention of provisions of the Act and consequences thereof. (1) Where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognition institutions has contravened any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under sub-section (3) of Section 14 or permission under sub-section (3) of Section 15 was granted, it may withdrew recognition of such recognised institution for reason to be recorded in writing : Provided that no such order against the recognised institutions shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order has been given to such recognised institution : Provided further that the order withdrawing or refusing recognition, passed by the Regional Committee shall come into force only with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of such order. (2) A copy of every order passed by the Regional Committee under subsection (1), (a) shall be communicated to the recognised institution concerned and a copy thereof shall also be forwarded simultaneously to the University or the examining body to which such institution was affiliated for cancelling affiliation, and (b) shall be published in the Official Gazette for general information. (3) Once the recognition of a recognised institution is withdrawn under sub-section (1), such institution shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education, and the concerned University or the examining body shall cancel affiliation of the institution in accordance with the order passed under sub-section (1), with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the said order. (4) If an institution offers any course of training in teacher education after the coming into force of the order withdrawing recognition under sub-section (1), or where an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediateiy before the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a course of training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University, or in any school/college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government." 13. From perusal of the above provisions it is clear that in the matter of recognition of teachers training colleges the Regional Committees established under the Act have primacy; in fact, its decision is binding and conclusive. Subsection (6) of section 14 lays down in no uncertain terms that on receipt of the order granting or refusing recognition to an institution the examining body (defined under section 2(d) to means University, agency or authority to which an institution is affiliated) to grant affiliation to the institution where recognition has been granted; or cancel the affiliation of the institution where the recognition has been refused. The Regional Committee is thus the last word in the matter subject to decision of the National Council on Appeal under section 18 of the Act. The Regional Committee is thus the last word in the matter subject to decision of the National Council on Appeal under section 18 of the Act. Subsection (4) of section 17 further lays down that where any institution offering a course of training in teacher education from before the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under the Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained for such course or training or after undertaking a course or training in such institution, "shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University, or in any school/college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government". All the petitioners herein, except of course the petitioner in CWJC No. 5430/99 which is college, claim to be students whose degrees/certificate etc. obtained from the Colleges in question have been cancelled by the impugned orders. It is, therefore, to be seen as to whether the colleges enjoyed recognition by the Eastern Regional Committee during the periods in question when the petitioners professedly took admission, prosecuted their courses of study and appeared at the examination leading to grant of degrees certificates etc. 14. I must hasten to clarify that notwithstanding the recognition by the Eastern Regional Committee or permission to continue if the very claim of the students concerned of taking admission, prosecuting studies by attending classes etc. as per the rules and regulations, or appearing at the examination is found to be false and the whole thing is found to be fraudulent, relief cannot be granted to them, for fraud vitiates all transactions. 15. Adverting to these cases it would appear that the alleged recognition/affiliation orders were issued after coming into force of the NCTE Act on 17.8.95 when the State Government or the Universities had no power to take decision on their own. The NCTE does not confer any power on the State Government whatsoever in the matter of recognition of teachers training colleges. And so far as Universities are concerned, under Section 14(6) of the Act, they are bound by the decision of the Regional Committee granting or refusing recognition. 16. It is relevant to mention here that excepting CWJC No. 5430 of 1999 which is by the College, and CWJC Nos. And so far as Universities are concerned, under Section 14(6) of the Act, they are bound by the decision of the Regional Committee granting or refusing recognition. 16. It is relevant to mention here that excepting CWJC No. 5430 of 1999 which is by the College, and CWJC Nos. 7515/2000 and 640/2001 in which petitioners academic session is said to be 1996-97 and 1994-95 respectively, and CWJC Nos. 7663/2000, 7712/2000 and 8417/2000 in which the petitioners are not even aware of the Sessions to which they belong, in all other cases, on their own saying the petitioners claim to be students of 1995-96 session. Regarding CWJC No. 2640/2001, I would like to say that though as per the petitioners case, they belonged to 1994-95 session, as per the documents enclosed by them they too belonged to 1995-96 session like other petitioners of Mulsim Minority Ahmadia College, Rampura, Katihar. 17. It is true that the recognition/affiliation orders in some cases relate to the periods prior to coming into force the NCTE Act and some of the petitioners claim to be students during that period. It has been contended that the State Government was competent to issue recognition orders for the earlier periods even after 17.8.95 i.e. retrospectively. Dealing with similar contention in LPA No. 717/96 (Magadh University V/s. Rajkiya Swami Dayanand Arya Teachers Training College (B.Ed.) Bikram) decided on 29.1.97 observed This Court is of the view that the order dated 16th December, 1984 cannot be called strictly speaking an order of recognition of the said institute. The said order is merely a permission under 1982 Act for the establishment of the said institute. This Court is further of the view that the submission of the learned Advocate Genera! is correct that the order dated 16th December, 1984 purporting to grant the so-called recognition to respondent no. 1 with retrospective effect is ultravires the Act. Such order is not authorised under the 1982 Act. In any event, on the strength of the said order, respondent no. 1, not being an affiliated institute with the appellant-University cannot ask this Court to issue a direction to allow its students to appear in the examination conducted by the appellant-University." 18. It is the function of the University under Section 4(19) of the State Universities Act to grant affiliation to a College. 1, not being an affiliated institute with the appellant-University cannot ask this Court to issue a direction to allow its students to appear in the examination conducted by the appellant-University." 18. It is the function of the University under Section 4(19) of the State Universities Act to grant affiliation to a College. Section 21(2)(d) of the Act vests this power in the Senate of the University with the rider that such affiliation does not take effect unless it is approved by the State Governor. To the same effect is Section 4(19). Thus, it is for the University to decide with the approval of the State Government the affiliation matter. The State Act of 1982 made special provisions with respect to Teachers Training Colleges amongst others. Under that Act such Colleges were required to take prior permission of the State Government to establish. The NCTE Act brought about a sea- change with effect from 17.8.95. The power to recognise Teachers Training Colleges came to be exclusively vested in the Regional Committee established under Section 20 of the Act with the Universities and/or the Government having little say or discretion in the matter. 19. Before proceeding further in this regard, it may be mentioned that though no such contention was advanced on behalf of the petitioners that being institutions established by the Minority community, no permission to establish under the State Act of 1982 was required in view of the provisens of Acticles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India, would like to mention that while considering the provisions of the said State Act, a Full Bench of this Court in Rahmania Primary Teachers Training College V/s. The State of Bihar, 1991 (1) PLJR 595 held that even though the minorities have right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, this right can be claimed only in respect of institutions which are truly educational institutions, and if they seek permission to appear at any examination conducted by University or body corporate owned and managed by the Government, they must fulfil the prescribed norms which it is open to the State to lay down to achieve the excellence of education. The students of any institution which does not satisfy the prescribed norms, cannot be allowed to appear in such examination. 20. The decision of the Supreme Court in St. The students of any institution which does not satisfy the prescribed norms, cannot be allowed to appear in such examination. 20. The decision of the Supreme Court in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute V/s. State of Tamil Nadu and ors., (1993) 3 SCC 595 was cited at the bar in this connection and, in fairness to the counsel for the respondents, the principles laid down by the Court on the subject may be noticed as under : "(1) The fundamental right declared by Article 30(1) of the Constitution is absolute in terms, but subject to regulatory measures. (2) There is no fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to establish or administer an educational institution, if recognition is sought therefor. (3) The institutions must be educational institutions of the minorities in truth and reality and not mere masked phantoms. (4) There is no fundamental right to recognition and any institution seeking recognition should abide by the regulations prescribed by the State as conditions therefor. (5) The minority institutions must be fully equipped with educational excellence to keep in step with other institutions in the State. (6) The regulations framed by the State cannot abridge the fundamental right of the minorities and they should be in the interests of the minority institution themselves and not based on State necessity or general societal necessities. (7) The regulations should be with a view to promoting excellence of educational standards and ensuring securities of the services of teachers and other employees of the institutions and in the true interests of efficiency of institutions, discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order and the like. (8) Even unaided institutions are not immune from the operations of general laws of the land such as Contract Law, Tax measures, Economic Laws, Social Welfare Legislation, Labour and Industrial Laws and similar other laws which are intended to meet the need of the society." 21. Adverting to the instant cases it would appear that though it was mandatory requirement to obtain permission from the State Government to establish College under the State Act of 1982, no such permission was obtained by any of the Colleges which are subject-matter of these cases. In the absence of any provision. regarding recognition of the training colleges etc. under the Act it is doubtful if the orders relied upon on behalf of the petitioners purporting to grant recognition, had any legal effect. In the absence of any provision. regarding recognition of the training colleges etc. under the Act it is doubtful if the orders relied upon on behalf of the petitioners purporting to grant recognition, had any legal effect. Be that as it may, as noticed above, after the coming into force the NCTE Act, it is the Eastern Regional Committee, recognition by which is a must, without which the training colleges may not claim any existence in the eye of law. The petitioners except some do claim to have been students and to have prosecuted their studies in sessions prior to the coming into force the NCTE Act, and it has accordingly been contended that non-recognition of the Regional Committee was of no consequence. In this regard reference was made to letter no 7128 dated 19.11.98 of the Eastern Regional Committee, Bhubneshwar, marked annexure 7 to the supplementary affidavit in CWJC No. 640/2001 to the effect that the NCTE (i.e. the Regional Committee) is required to consider the recognition of teachers training institutions from the Sessions 1996- 97, and therefore the Committee had no comments to offer regarding validity of the B.Ed qualification acquired prior to 1997. 22. I am inclmedto think that if the concerned petitioners were really students of the Sessions 1994-95 or 1995-96, it would be a debatable proposition whether the State Government was competent to decide recognition matter leading to affiliation of the colleges by the concerned University under the State Universities Act even though the Division Bench in the case of Magadh University vs. Rajkiya Swami Dayanand Arya Teachers Training College (supra) has held that recognition cannot be granted with retrospective effect. The Regional Committee under the NCTE Act have juridiction to decide the recognition matter from Session 1996-97 onwards and therefore if it were a fact that the application for recognition was pending with the State Government when the NCTE came into force, perhaps, the Government was competent to take decision for the Sessions upto 1995-96. This situation, however, does not seem to arise in these cases. Such occasion would have arisen provided the colleges were genuine and the petitioners were bona fide students thereof, that is to say, they had taken admission and prosecuted their studies by attending classes etc. during the period prior to coming into force of the Act. This situation, however, does not seem to arise in these cases. Such occasion would have arisen provided the colleges were genuine and the petitioners were bona fide students thereof, that is to say, they had taken admission and prosecuted their studies by attending classes etc. during the period prior to coming into force of the Act. It is to be kept in mind that none of these colleges had obtained permission to establish under the State Act of 1982 which was the mandatory requirement. 23. I do not wish to make an indepth examination of the petitioners claim of being bona fide students because criminal" cases involving this dispute are pending, but the facts stated in the FIRs and documents enclosed therewith create serious doubt in this regard. The records seems to have been manipulated on large scale. How else one can explain inviting applications for 10 or 12 academic sessions at a time, for example, in the cases of National Teachers Training College, Arer or S.Wakil Ahmad College, Darbhanga. Admittedly, examinations in question were held in the year 1997 and that was a joint examination for different sessions including sessions 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. In the face of materials collected by the Investigating Bureau leading to institution of the criminal cases, it is not possible to believe the petitioners that they had taken admission, prosecuted and finished their courses when the NCTE Act came into force and therefore, the provisions of that Act would not apply to them and their cases are covered by the orders passed by the State Government and/or the University granting recognition and affiliation after the appointed day i.e. 17.8.95. It is significant to mention that the functionaries of the Government and University, amongst others, like Minister, Secretary rank Officers, ViceChancellors, Registrars etc. figure as accused in those criminal cases. 24. It is curious to find that all the petitioners of as many as 24 writ petitions except CWJC Nos. 5430 and 10687 of 1999 and CWJC Nos. 7515 and 8417 of 2000, belong to few districts of the State of Rajasthan. As a matter of fact, out of those 24 writ petitions, 23 petitions relate to same college namely, Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed. College, Rampura, Katihar. 5430 and 10687 of 1999 and CWJC Nos. 7515 and 8417 of 2000, belong to few districts of the State of Rajasthan. As a matter of fact, out of those 24 writ petitions, 23 petitions relate to same college namely, Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed. College, Rampura, Katihar. It does not seem to be a mere chance that the candidates of far off places of Rajasthan would take admission in the B.Ed course in a college situate at a remote place in the State of Bihar, not so well known within the State itself. Of late, Courts have taken notice of the mushroom growth of educational institutions, particularly, those purporting to impart education in professional courses and it has been observed that they are "commercial ventures" catering to the desire to make money other than to impart education to the students. Considering the number of such colleges, which is evident from the list brought on record of these cases, professedly established by the minority community, one is left to wonder whether they are institutions truly established by the minority community or they have been established to claim advantage under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution. In the cse of St. Johns Teachers Training Institute vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) the Court observed : Many of such institutions are not only "masked phantoms" but are established as business ventures for admitting substandard students, without any competitive tests, on basis of considerations which cannot even (sic) serve the interest of the minority. 25. Once the genuineness of the petitioners as students of the concerned colleges becomes suspect, it would be difficult to grant any relief to them by protecting their employment which they claim to have got on the basis of the degrees obtained by them pursuant to the impugned examinations. Section 17(4) of the NCTE Act lays down in clear terms that where an institution offering course of training in teachers education immediately before the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under the Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking the course or training in such institution "shall not be treated as a valid qualification for the purpose of employment" under the Central Government, any State Government or University/School/College etc. aided by the Central/State Government. aided by the Central/State Government. If that is the position with respect to institutions really existing before the appointed day, institutions which did not even exist on the appointed day or, rather, found to be fake institutions would surely stand on a weaker footing. 26. In N.M. Nageshwaramma V/s. State of A.P., 1986 (Supp.) SCC 166, the Apex Cort observed as under : "The teachers Training Institutes are meant to teach children of impressionable age and it cannot let loose on the innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not received proper and adequate training. True they will be required to pass the examination but that may not be enough. Training for a certain minimum period in a properiy organised and equipped Training Institute is probably essential before a teacher may be duly launched." In Andhra Kesari Educational Society V/s. Director of School Education, (1989) 1 SCC 392 the Apex Court observed as under : "...Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the role of teachers is central to all processes of formal education. The teacher alone couid bring out the skills and intellectual capabilities of students. He is the engine of the educational system. He is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural value. He needs to be endowed and energised with needed potential to deliver enlightened service expected of him. His quality should be such as would inspire and motivate into action the benefiter. He must keep himself abreast of ever changing conditions. He is not to perform in wooden and unimaginative way. He must eliminiate fissiparous tendencies and attitudes and infuse nobler and national ideas in younger minds. His involvement in national integration is more important, indeed indispensable. It is, therefore, needless to state that teachers should be subjected to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny of efficiency. It has greater relevance to the needs of the day. The ill trained or sub-standard teachers would be detrimental to our educational system; if not a punishment on our children. His involvement in national integration is more important, indeed indispensable. It is, therefore, needless to state that teachers should be subjected to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny of efficiency. It has greater relevance to the needs of the day. The ill trained or sub-standard teachers would be detrimental to our educational system; if not a punishment on our children. The Government and the University must, therefore, take care to see that inadequacy in the training of teachers is not compounded by any extraneous consideration." In State of Maharashtra V/s. Vikas Saheb Rao Roundale, (1992) 4 SCC 435 the Apex Court observed as under : "The teacher plays pivotal role in mouding the career, character and moral fibres and aptitude for educational excellence in impressive young children. The formal education needs proper equipment by the teacher to meet the challenges of the day to impart lessons with latest techniques to the students on secular, scientific and rational outlook. A well-equipped teacher could bring the needed skills intellectual capabilities of the students in their pursuits. The teacher is adorned as Gurudevobhava, next after parents, as he is a principal instrument to awaking the child to the cultural ethos, intellectual excellency and discipline. The teachers, therefore, must keep abreast ever-changing techniques, the needs of the society and to cope up with the psychological approaoch to the aptitudes of the children to perform that pivotal role. In short teachers need to be endowed and energised with needed potential to serve the needs of the society. The qualitative training in the Training Colleges or schools would inspire and motivate them into action to the benefit of the students. For equipping such trainee students in a school or a college all facilities and equipments are absolutely necessary and institutions bereft thereof have no place to exist nor entitled to recognition. In that behalf compliance with the statutory requirement is insisted upon. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education." 27. In that behalf compliance with the statutory requirement is insisted upon. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education." 27. It would not be out of place to efer to the observations of the Apex Court made in somewhat different condiions while considering the prayer of the students of an unrecognised college to permit them to appear at the University Examination in A. P. Christians Medical Educational Society V/s. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1991) 3 SCC 87 as under : "Shri K. K. Venugopal, learned counsel for the students who have been admitted into the MBBS course of this institution, pleaded that the interests of the students should not be sacrificed because of the conduct or folly of the management and that they should be permitted to appear at the University examination notwithstanding the circumstance that permission and affiliation had not been granted to the institution. He invited our attention to the circumstances that students of the medical college established by the Darus-Salam educational trust were permitted to appear at the examination notwithstanding the fact that affiliation had not by then been granted by the University. Shri Venugopal suggested that we might, issue appropriate directions to the University to protect the interest of the students. We do not think that we can possibly accede to the request by Shri Venugopal on behalf of the students. Any direction of the nature sought by Shri Venugopal would be in clear trangression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the court to disobey the laws." 28. In the above mentioned premises of fact and law, I find it difficult to grant any relief to the petitioners. The submission was made as to violation of rules of natural justice. But where the very existence of the colleges, the orders relating to their recognition/affiliation ete. are under cloud and subject matter of criminal investigation after fact finding enquiry by the Investigation Bureau of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, I do not think it was necessary to give opportunity of hearing to the students. But where the very existence of the colleges, the orders relating to their recognition/affiliation ete. are under cloud and subject matter of criminal investigation after fact finding enquiry by the Investigation Bureau of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, I do not think it was necessary to give opportunity of hearing to the students. In taking this view, I must candidly say, I have been impressed by the facts and circumstances disclosed in the First Information Reports about which I do not wish to make comments to avoid any prejudice to the parties. 29. In the result, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.