Judgment :- The petitioners in these Original Petitions and others are desirous of setting up training colleges on self-financing basis. The sanction has to be given by NCTE (National Council For Teacher Education), whose regional office is stationed in Bangalore so far as this State is concerned. All the petitioners intend to apply. As per the statutory regulations issued by the NCTE, application shall reach them before 31st of December of the year preceeding which the courses have to commence. In this case the last date was 31.12.2001. In order to make an application to that body, non-objection certificate (NOC) granted by the State Government is a pre-requisite. Without that no sanction will be accorded by that body. All the petitioners applied to the State Government for such NOC. All the petitioners were later directed to give more details if not already furnished, in the preforma specifically issued to them. They furnished the necessary information in the preforma as well, remitting the necessary fee suggested by the Govt. All the petitioners were also informed by Govt. about a conference to be held as is revealed by a communication dated 18.9.2001 produced in these Original Petitions. Later that conference was adjourned. It was not so far convened. The last date fixed by the NCTE was fast approaching. The petitioners were not told about the fate of their applications for NOC. It was in the above circumstances all the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to Government to grant NOC so as to enable them to make application to NCTE. Some of them had even applied NCTE, anticipating issuance of NOC later. 2. In these Original Petitions different contentions are raised by the petitioners. Those related to violation of right under Act.30(1) of the Constitution of India so far as minority communities are concerned and violation of Art.14 of the Constitution in so far as the Govt. had granted NOCs to 9 selected persons. Govt. had granted NOCs for Engineering, Medicine and other professional colleges without any reservation; but is arbitrarily denying NOCs to B.Ed colleges. The Govt. contended that it is their policy for this year that no NOC be issued until educational need for the next year is ascertained. It is contended by the petitioners that there is no valid policy published by Govt. making the public of Kerala aware of such policy that the Govt. The Govt. contended that it is their policy for this year that no NOC be issued until educational need for the next year is ascertained. It is contended by the petitioners that there is no valid policy published by Govt. making the public of Kerala aware of such policy that the Govt. is not issuing any NOCs for starting new B.Ed colleges in the year 2002-03. Few of the petitioners contend that they have invested large amounts for acquiring site and constructing buildings. That was with the hope that the Govt. will issue NOC. When communication dated 18.9.2001 had been issued for a conference, they did have a hope that the Govt. will grant NOC. The arbitrary decision, stated to be based on a policy, not to grant NOC this year will thus result in denial of their expectation that they legitimately did have on the basis of communication dated 18.9.2001. On that reason also there was discrimination and arbitrariness on the part of the Govt. In one or two cases it was also contended that while granting NOC to nine persons or while not granting NOC to all the applicants the govt. did not advert to the different education need of each of the Districts including Idukki where there is total education backwarndess. 3. It is contended by Govt. that while the applications received had been processed, it was found that no relevant policy has been issued by Govt. Accordingly the council of ministers which met on 5.12.2001 evloved a guideline and decided to process the applications in the light of the said guideline. Later it was found that there were several applications and the educational requirement has to be ascertained before issuing NOC to hundreds of applicants. Therefore Govt. thought of a policy not to grant any NOC for starting B.Ed colleges during the year 2002-03 as no educational need has been ascertained. It was also decided that issuance of NOC will be taken up in the year 2003-04 and the 9 NOCs already given before this policy has been evolved shall be directed to be considered for the said year alone by giving appropriate directions to the NCTE. When the Govt. had not given any NOC after 25.8.2001 and had evolved a policy as mentioned above, there arise no violation of Art.30(1) as it is not unqualified right and as the Govt. When the Govt. had not given any NOC after 25.8.2001 and had evolved a policy as mentioned above, there arise no violation of Art.30(1) as it is not unqualified right and as the Govt. will have always power to regulate the educational aspects including taking into account the educational requirement. 4. Certainly Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees a precious right to the religious and linquistic minorities, the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Of course this right shall be the right to establish and administer recognized institutions; as otherwise no student will approach such institutions to get learning as the degrees or diplomas issued by said institutions will not have any recognition. Necessarily the denial of such recognition shall militate against this right guaranteed under Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. When such a recognition is denied, necessarily this court will step in and protect such rights. See The Ahmedabad St.Xaviers College Society and another etc. v. State of Gujarat and another (AIR 1974 SC 1389). It is now accepted principle that the said right is not so an unqualified right so that the minority, either linguistic or religious is totally out of the regulatory powers of Govt. to control the grant of institutions, grant of recognitions etc., The Full Bench of this Court as early as in Fr.Mathew v. state of Keral 1978 KLT 763 had held that the right conferred by Art.30(1) of the constitution is not an absolute or unqualified right; but one capable of regulation in the matter and manner of its exercise is now beyond the dispute. This court also held that one cannot come to an extreme position of entitling the minority to be granted sanction for an educational institution on the mere asking or wherever it wants to establish a institution when they raised a claim. That is not the scope and contend of Art.30. This pronouncement has been made full in the light of challenge against Rule 2 Chapter V of Kerala Education Rules regarding the procedure for determining areas where new schools are to be opened or existing schools are to be upgraded. Necessarily in the matter of grant of NOC also there arise no absolute and unqualified right for the minorities to get it at the mere asking at any point of time and in any place. When the Govt. Necessarily in the matter of grant of NOC also there arise no absolute and unqualified right for the minorities to get it at the mere asking at any point of time and in any place. When the Govt. has a policy that they are not issuing any NOC for starting a college in a particular year, necessarily that policy will bind the minority as well. This is not a total denial but a temporary or regulatory measure for a particular year subject to assessment of educational need similar as the grant of sanction to start aided schools in terms of Rule 2 Chapter V KER. Therefore there arise no question of violation of right available under Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India, as they are not granted NOC based on the policy, provided policy is reasonable. 5. Govt. have now evolved a policy as is averred in the counter affidavit filed on 14.1.2002. Certain materials were placed with regard to issuance of NOC before council of ministers which met on 26.12.2001 and the council of ministers, as extracted in the counter affidavit, “decided not to give NOC this year. Also decided that Education Department should conduct a survey regarding the necessity of sanctioning courses. Consequently the policy so taken was reduced in the form of an order authenticating the decision of the Govt. in the manner provided for in the Rules of Business of Govt. Ext.R1(a) is the order in that regard. It is submitted that this policy did come only on 11.1.2002 when R1(a) order has been issued. Therefore the application of the petitioners which were being considered based on communication dated 8.9.2001 and on the basis of guidelines formulated by the council of ministers on 5.12.2001 ought to have considered, on the basis of the existing policy. It is more so when admittedly atleast 9 applicants had been given NOCs to apply to NCTE for starting B.Ed colleges in the year 2002-2003. This necessarily will lead to discrimination offending Art.14 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that when at least 9 applicants were given NOC, it cannot be taken that Govt. had not considered the educational need. Thus even going by the Government’s own decision in granting NOCs, educational need was existing. In such circumstances it is totally unreasonable to deny it to the petitioners. It is further contended that when at least 9 applicants were given NOC, it cannot be taken that Govt. had not considered the educational need. Thus even going by the Government’s own decision in granting NOCs, educational need was existing. In such circumstances it is totally unreasonable to deny it to the petitioners. It is also submitted relying on the division Bench decision in University of Kerala v. manager, M.T. College of Science and Technology (AIR 1999 Kerala 433) that any policy to be acted upon shall be one published making the person affected thereby aware of that policy. Until issuance of Ext.R1(a) there was no policy not to grant NOCs for the year in question. Therefore all the applications filed earlier than the said date shall be considered in the same footing as in the case of the persons who had been granted NOCs. In one among the Original Petition there is also challenge against Ext.R1(a) pointing out this arbitrariness and discrimination. 6. Another discrimination pointed out by the petitioner is the grant of whole scale NOCs for starting professional colleges in the state without even examining the contents of the application. In such circumstances there was no reason at all to reject all the applications for NOCs to start B.Ed Colleges; that too following the guidelines formulated by the council of ministers on 5.12.2001. 7. It is true that this court in the decision reported in the University of Kerala v. Manager.Marthoma College of Science and Techonology (AIR 1999 SC) held as follows; “In the instant case, the policy decision was introduced for the first time only in the counter affidavit. The university is not in a position to explain to this Court in regard to the absence of such a reason in the resolution passed by the University which is under challenge in the writ petitions. The resolution only says that no new courses be affiliated to any of the unaided colleges under the University during the year 1999-2000. Except this, no other reason for denying permission sought for has been mentioned in the said resolution. As pointed out earlier, there is also no reference to the policy decision in the said resolution. The resolution only says that no new courses be affiliated to any of the unaided colleges under the University during the year 1999-2000. Except this, no other reason for denying permission sought for has been mentioned in the said resolution. As pointed out earlier, there is also no reference to the policy decision in the said resolution. The learned counsel for the University is also not in a position to place any decision taken by the University in regard to the policy decision now introduced in the counter affidavit.” A defence on the basis of the policy was rejected by this Court. In this case there are materials to show that the Govt. had taken policy not to grant NOCs for this year based on the decision of the council of ministers as extracted in the counter affidavit as mentioned above. Not only that based on the decision of the council of ministers that decision had been authenticated in the from of Govt. order, Ext.R1. The Govt. is proposing to conduct a study regarding the educational requirement for B.Ed course and for that purpose a high power committee is constituted and all the applicants have been informed of the above decision. Thus existence of a policy cannot now be disputed. 8. The other question is whether this policy will have effect even in respect of the application pending as on the date of Ext.R1(a). This policy was evolved not by a statutory body; but the council of ministers. In our system of Govt. there is a legislature-based executive which is expected to know the wish of the people and the pulse of the public. Necessarily when they evolve a policy, naturally that shall govern the entire executive action that has to be taken by Government, irrespective whether the processes for an action has been initiated even prior to the enunciation of such policy or not. True the applications have been given in all most all cases after the communication dated 18.9.2001. In one or two cases certain applications have been produced as given still earlier but those are with regard to recommendation for affiliation to the University and not for a non-objection certificate to be furnished to the NCTE for grant of sanction to B.Ed colleges. It is during such process of consideration of these applications that the Govt. In one or two cases certain applications have been produced as given still earlier but those are with regard to recommendation for affiliation to the University and not for a non-objection certificate to be furnished to the NCTE for grant of sanction to B.Ed colleges. It is during such process of consideration of these applications that the Govt. felt that a study has to be conducted with regard to the requirement of the educational institutions in the concerned field before issuing NOCs. Necessarily that policy shall cover all the pending process and applications in the matter of the orders to be issued thereafter. It is not like the case of a policy of a body created by a statute, like the University. Bodies like the University are the statutory bodies. Those are not popular bodies. They do have the power limited within the sphere of the statute. Such statutory bodies have to announce the policy after deliberation whereas a Govt. may have to announce a policy reacting to the popular wish or the economic or social factors; abruptly and immediately. The popular Govt. shall have to take up that responsibility also, when enormous applications are coming for a particular course seeking NOCs to sanction institution of a particular type of course. Therefore there is nothing illegal in that policy. Govt. can certainly undertake a study as to the nature of institutions to be sanctioned or types of course to be sanctioned in a particular area; under a particular management etc. That cannot be stated to be arbitrary. Therefore there arise no question of illegality in the policy now evolved in Ext.R1(a). 9. It is in this juncture the contention regarding discrimination has to be dealt with. It is an admitted case before me by the respondents that they had granted 9 NOCs, the last among the certificate so granted is dated 29.10.2001 based on an application dated 18.8.2001. As already mentioned above at that time there was no policy as evolved by the council of ministers held on 26.12.2001 as authenticated in Ext.R1(a). All the applications by the petitioners were also made on dates later than 18.8.2001. The applications pointed out like Ext.P9 in O.P.226/2002 are applications filed before the Secretary or Minister as the case may be seeking permission to start college and to recommend to the University for affiliation. All the applications by the petitioners were also made on dates later than 18.8.2001. The applications pointed out like Ext.P9 in O.P.226/2002 are applications filed before the Secretary or Minister as the case may be seeking permission to start college and to recommend to the University for affiliation. Of course Ext.P1 in O.P.167/2002 is an application for NOC. But that is not one sent to the Secretary to Govt., but only to the Minister which may not receive attention in the normal course. Based on that no case can be built up. All the application for which NOCs have been given are thus prior to the evolvement of the policy and in respect of the applications submitted earlier than those of the petitioners. In such circumstances it cannot be taken that there is discrimination. More over it is stated in the counter affidavit that Govt. was intimating the NCTE that the latter shall not accord any sanction to start B.Ed colleges in this State during 2002-2003 on the basis of the NOCs granted. Affidavit was filed on 14.1.2002. It cannot be taken that the Govt. have not so far intimated the matter to the NCTE, this being an important aspect even going by the policy decision taken on 26.12.2001. It is stated that direction is being issued to NCTE that those NOCs need be considered for the year 2003-2004. So there arise no discrimination so far as the current year is concerned. 10. It is in this background yet another contention regarding discrimination urged by the petitioner has to be considered. It is submitted that going by the affidavit of the Govt. 9 NOCs already granted would be considered for grant of college during 2003-2004. only based on the education need to be ascertained, the pending application for issuance of NOCs would be considered during the said year. A situation may arise when a more advantageous institution than the said 9 institutions may not get NOCs based on the educational requirement. If such a better applicant is denied, it will violate Article 14. Educational requirement is depending upon the area in question not taking the State as a whole. A situation may arise when a more advantageous institution than the said 9 institutions may not get NOCs based on the educational requirement. If such a better applicant is denied, it will violate Article 14. Educational requirement is depending upon the area in question not taking the State as a whole. It is therefore made clear that if educational need is found with respect to a area where already an NOC had been granted, necessarily the applicants, satisfying conditions similar to as one granted already shall also necessarily be granted NOCs as and when the issue is taken up in the next year. This will necessarily solve the vice of discrimination pointed out by the petitioners in that respect. 11. The contention that no objection certificate is not granted only for B.Ed colleges where as mass scale certificates had been granted for Engineering, Medical and other professional course does not merit consideration. The professional colleges and the B.Ed colleges are not on the same footing. In such circumstances it cannot be taken that there is discrimination. 12. There is also no basis in the contention that the Govt. is bound because of a promissory estoppel to grant NOCs to the applicants who had invested large amount to purchase land and to construct building. At no point of time Govt. had invited applications by issuing a notification from the public. The communication dated 18.9.2001 produced in most of these Original Petitions, cannot be taken as a promise on the part of the Govt. Because of such a communication there was no chance of expectation for grant of NOCs so far so petitioners are concerned. So that contention also fails. 13. The contention that the Govt. had not considered the applications from backward area like Idukki Dist. Also does not merit further consideration at this point of time. The Govt., as is now revealed in the counter affidavit and in Ext.R1(a), is constituting a high power committee to enquire into the educational need and the number of colleges to be granted in the State. Necessarily that committee will take note of the educational need or backwardness of a particular district or the necessity to grant more colleges in one or other districts. Necessarily Govt. have to study the report of the committee constituted in terms of Ext.R1 and to ascertain the education need. Necessarily that committee will take note of the educational need or backwardness of a particular district or the necessity to grant more colleges in one or other districts. Necessarily Govt. have to study the report of the committee constituted in terms of Ext.R1 and to ascertain the education need. Based on such report decision for issuance of NOC will be taken up. It will cover the backward districts with due importance. This exercise shall be completed at the earliest, so that the NOCs can be issued, whether necessary, sufficiently earlier than 31.12.2002, the cut of date for the next year. Original Petitions are disposed of accordingly.