Judgment :- R. Jayasimha Babu, J. The appellant institution which was established in the year 1994 will complete its ten years of existence only next year. It is, however, anxious to be declared as a deemed University. The State Government, whose consent is required in terms of a scheme formulated by the University Grants Commission for grant of that status has declined to grant the certificate sought by the petitioner on the ground that it has not completed ten years of its existence. 2. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that the State Government has no say in the matter as the field is occupied by the Legislation framed by Parliament, that field being one referable to Entry 66, List 1 of VII Schedule of the Constitution, the University Grants Commission being the authority empowered to grant the status of Deemed University. It is, however not in dispute that under the scheme formulated by University Grants Commission it is provided that State Government's consent is essential for the University Grants Commission to consider the proposal any further. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the University Grants Commission in this proceeding, it has been categorically stated that unless the State Government's consent is forthcoming, University Grants Commission will not be able to proceed further in the matter. 3. The power of the State Government to grant a 'No Objection Certificate' is, therefore, not a statutory power. It is required to give that consent only because University Grants Commission has required it to do so in terms of the scheme which the University Grants Commission has formulated. 4. While granting such consent, the State Government is not required to grant it merely for the asking. It is entitled to satisfy itself that the institution conforms to the requirements which the institution ought to possess before being granted the status of a Deemed University. In the view of the State Government, the continued existence of the institution for a period of ten years is an essential requirement as it is only then that the institution's worth in terms of quality of its staff and graduates, its infrastructure, the variety of courses provided and other factors can be properly assessed. 5. We had directed the University Grants Commission to state specifically as to whether it has any comments to make on this condition which the State Government has stipulated. 5. We had directed the University Grants Commission to state specifically as to whether it has any comments to make on this condition which the State Government has stipulated. It is the stand of the University Grants Commission that it has no comments to make regarding that stipulation. This stand implies that it is not opposed to the guideline framed by the State Government and that it does not regard that guideline to be irrelevant or being extraneous to the consideration of the suitability of the institution for being accorded the status of a Deemed University. 6. Counsel in this context submitted that the University Grants Commission's role is primary. It is no doubt so. As the University Grants Commission itself has sought the certificate from the State Government, the State Government cannot be compelled to grant the certificate unless the State is satisfied prima facie that the institution is worthy of the title that it seeks namely that of a Deemed University. So long as the State Government does not adopt a criteria which is per se arbitrary or illegal for a proper consideration of the eligibility of the institution for being regarded as a Deemed University, the criteria adopted by the State Government for its own guidance cannot be said to be in any way illegal or offending any right of the petitioner. 7. We do not find any error in the decision of the learned single Judge who has upheld the power of the State Government as also the criteria adopted and followed by it. 8. The writ appeal is dismissed.