Judgment Krishan Kumar, J.-This special appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 01.09.2004 rendered by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1832/1999. The learned Single allowed the writ petition in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Shah Goverdhan Lal Kabra Teachers College vs. Union of India & Ors; D.B Civil Writ Petition No. 1644/99 decided on 09.08.2000 and directed the respondents to complete the process of filling up the posts strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of Judgment and to offer appointment to the petitioner if he was in the list of successful candidates otherwise. 2. Cross-objection has been filed in this appeal, which has been tagged with the appeal. Vide order dated 15.07.2004, the cross-objection was ordered to be treated as an application in the appeal and ordered to be heard alongwith the appeal. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent-petitioner-a graduate in Arts did his graduation in Education from Barkatullah Khan University, Bhopal by correspondence course. The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jalore vide notification dated 15.06.1998 invited applications for the post of teacher Grade-III. The qualifications of the candidates have been advertised in Annexure-1. The respondent-petitioner applied for the said post and also appeared in the interview. In the merit list, placed on the notice board showing the names of the candidates interviewed and percentage of marks secured by them, the name of respondent-petitioner has been shown to secured about 73.84% marks. However, the final list could not be published on account of stay granted by this Court. A final select/merit list containing names of 306 candidates was declared wherein 156 candidates were found suitable for giving appointment in general category and rest in the reserved category. In pursuance thereof , appointment orders were issued with a direction that the successful candidates shall join their post on 01.07.1999 on the new academic session. The last candidate, who has been shown in the final merit list, has secured. 72.398% marks. The appointment has been denied to the respondent-petitioner on the ground that the qualification of B.Ed. Correspondence course secured by him from Bhopal University is not recognized by National Council for Teacher Education (for short “NCTE”). This information has been conveyed to the respondent-petitioner by the Office of Zila Parishad, Jalore. 72.398% marks. The appointment has been denied to the respondent-petitioner on the ground that the qualification of B.Ed. Correspondence course secured by him from Bhopal University is not recognized by National Council for Teacher Education (for short “NCTE”). This information has been conveyed to the respondent-petitioner by the Office of Zila Parishad, Jalore. The National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (for short “the Act of 1993”) has come into force in the State of Rajasthan w.e.f. 01.07.1995. As per the communication of the NCTE dated 10.07.1997; the regulations framed by the Government of India were published in the Government of India Gazette dated 24.02.1996. Thus, the process of recognizing degrees could not be commenced before 24.02.1996. The NCTE itself issued the communication dated 10.07.1997 and also issued another public notice in regard to the institutions concerning the Teachers Education informing the institutions that the applicantion for recognition are required to be submitted by 17.08.1997 instead of 15.05.1997. The Assistant Registrar, Kurukshetra University wrote a letter dated 06.08.1998 to Rammurti Beniwal mentioning therein that NCTE vide letter dated 26.02.1996 has informed the University of Kurukshetra that for the present academic year 1995-96 the status quo was allowed to be maintained. The regional Director, NCTE wrote a letter to Shri Tirth Raj Rankawat being in the subject matter of the recognition of the degree granted by the Barkatualla Khan University, Bhopal for the year 1995-96, wherein it has been stated that the prescribed norms are applicable from Sessions 1996-97. The respondent petitioner had submitted that he cannot be denied appointment to the post of teacher Grade-III on the ground that the degree is not recognized by NCTE. The respondent-petitioner in the writ petition has taken the stand that he sought admission in the B.Ed. Correspondence course from the Barkatulla Khan University before the Act of 1993 came into force. The academic year started on 03.07.1995 and he completed the course in the year 1996 although the formal degree was granted in March, 1997. In this regard, it is apparent from letter of the Assistant Registrar from the Kurukshetra University dated 06.08.1998 that the NCTE allowed the status quo to be maintained in regard to the present academic year 1995-96. The respondent-petitioner pursued his studies in the academic year 1995-96. In this regard, it is apparent from letter of the Assistant Registrar from the Kurukshetra University dated 06.08.1998 that the NCTE allowed the status quo to be maintained in regard to the present academic year 1995-96. The respondent-petitioner pursued his studies in the academic year 1995-96. If NCTE allows the course to be continued, to undo the degree will more or less in a way amounts to an effect it’s de-recognition from retrospective effect. This cannot be allowed to be done. In these circumstances, the respondent-petitioner pleaded that the degree granted to him cannot be allowed to stand annulled as the Act of 1993 cannot have retrospective operation to take away the rights which accrued to him on account of admission to the academic year 1995-96 and more so when the NCTE allowed the University to continue the course. The respondent-petitioner has been denied appointment while the persons less meritorious than the respondent-petitioner have been given appointment. In these circumstances, the respondent-petitioner preferred the writ petition with the following reliefs:- I/a. It be declared that degree granted to petitioner pursuant to his admission in the academic Session 1995-96 of the Barkatulla University entitles them to appointment as a teacher in Zila Parishad, Jalore and the Act cannot operate to undo a degree granted pursuance to admission in academic year 1995-96. I/b. The respondent Zila Parishad be directed to give appointment to the petitioner as teacher in Zila Parishad as per his merit position in the select/merit. 4. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed reply to the writ petition and pleaded that B.Ed. Degree secured from correspondence course by the respondent-petitioner is not recognized by NCTE. The respondent-petitioner was not found suitable for being appointed on the post of teacher Grade-III, he was not given appointment. 5. In the reply filed on behalf if the State, it has been pleaded that the Act of 1993 came into force in the State of Rajasthan w.e.f. 01.07.1995 and in accordance with the Act of 1993 by virtue of Section 14 read with Rule 15 only those institutions can grant degree which are recognized by the NCTE. Thus, after coming into force of the Act of 1993, only those degrees shall be valid and binding which are duly recognized under the Act of 1993. In this regard a circular was issued by the State dated 26.06.1999 (Annexure-R/1). Thus, after coming into force of the Act of 1993, only those degrees shall be valid and binding which are duly recognized under the Act of 1993. In this regard a circular was issued by the State dated 26.06.1999 (Annexure-R/1). The Respondent No. 5 had also issued a public notice, published in Rajasthan Patrika, Jodhpur Edition dated 28.05.1997 in this regard. Since, Kurukshetra and Barakatullah Khan Universities have not been recognized for running B.Ed. Correspondence course, a communication (Annexure-R/3) was received by the State Government. .6. The Respondent No.5 has filed separate reply and pleaded aims and objects of the Act of 1993. They have also pleaded that the NCTE alone is now competent to lay down the norms, guidelines, standards to be maintained by the institutions involved in teacher education and training. The NCTE has already framed regulations, which have been notified in the Gazette of Government of India. It was further pleaded that the appointment to the respondent-petitioner has been denied in view of the fact that the qualification of B.Ed. Correspondence course secured by him is not recognized by the NCTE. Thus, keeping in view the object sought to be achieved by the Act of 1993, the action of the respondents in denying appointment to the respondent-petitioner was perfectly legal and justified. .7. The respondent-petitioner also filed rejoinder to the reply. .8. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Shah Govardhan Lal Kabra Teachers College vs Union of India & Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1644/1999, decided on 09.08.2000. Against which, this special appeal has been preferred. .9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 10. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Act of 1993 has come into force on 01.07.1995, therefore, the degrees granted by Barkatullah Khan University does not stand recognized after 01.07.1995 and Government orders of recognition ceased to be effective. 10. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Act of 1993 has come into force on 01.07.1995, therefore, the degrees granted by Barkatullah Khan University does not stand recognized after 01.07.1995 and Government orders of recognition ceased to be effective. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Shah Govardhan Lal Kabra Teachers College (Supra), wherein the constitutional validity of Section 17 of the Act of 1993 has been challenged, was reversed by the Apex Court, therefore, the Judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Shah Govardhan Lal Kabra Teachers College (Supra), deserves to be set aside. Although, the learned Counsel for the appellant has agreed that the respondent-petitioner was admitted in the B.Ed. Correspondence course in the year 1995-96 before de-recognition process started. .11. In reply to the aforesaid argument, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that a Division Bench of this Court in a petition filed by Shah Goverdhan Lal Kabra Teachers College vide Judgment reported in AIR 2001 Raj. 150 , upheld the challenge to the constitutional validity of aforesaid provisions and struck down Section 17 as ultra vires. The provisions of Section 14 were not held to be ultra vires. Thereafter, on appeal, the Supreme Court had reversed the aforesaid Judgment and the constitutional validity of Section 17 (4) of the Act of 1993 was also upheld by the Apex Court vide its .Judgment dated 210.2002 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7454/2000, Union of India vs. Shah Goverdhan Lal Kabra Teachers College, alongwith other cases. As a result of the aforesaid decision, the question of constitutional validity of any of the provisions of the Act of 1993 for the present purpose does not survive but on the other grounds the respondent-petitioner has a strong case and he is entitled for the relief as claimed in the writ petition. The learned Counsel for the respondent urged that since the respondent-petitioner has obtained the degree form the university established by law by correspondence course before the Regulation for implementing the provisions of the Act of 1993, came into force, validity of such qualification remained unaffected and those qualified have not been de-recognized under any provisions of law. The learned Counsel for the respondent urged that since the respondent-petitioner has obtained the degree form the university established by law by correspondence course before the Regulation for implementing the provisions of the Act of 1993, came into force, validity of such qualification remained unaffected and those qualified have not been de-recognized under any provisions of law. Learned Counsel for the respondent-petitioner contended that the scheme of Sections 14, 15, 16, and 17 of the Act of 1993 envisages the requirement of and procedure for continuing any course for imparting training in teachers education as per the provisions of said Act only for the period after the Act of 1993 came into force. It does not provide for de-recognition of any degree or certificate obtained from any recognized institution or any university recognized by law prior to that date. It was also pointed out that degrees and certificates in teachers training obtained from University established by law or from a recognized institutions up to the academic Session 1995-96 remained unaffected by the provisions of the Act of 1993 for which necessary indication has been made in the Act itself . Learned Counsel for the respondent-petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2884/99, Ram Narain vs. State, DB Civil Writ Petition No. 2888/99, Mank Chand vs. State, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2890/99 Devaki Nandan vs. State of Raj. & Ors. and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4224/99, Murlidhar vs. State of Raj. & Ors., decided on 02.04.2003 and argued that the Division Bench of this Court has also held that all the candidates had obtained requisite certificate of physical training education before the close of academic Sessions 1995-96, from Nagpur University after having received training in recognized institution their validity remain unaffected by subsequent non inclusion of Nagpur University amongst the recognized institution by the NCTE. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondent-petitioner has drawn our attention to the application (cross-objection) filed by him under Order 41 Rule 19, CPC and argued that the respondent-petitioner has already taken admission in the B.Ed. Course which commenced from 01.07.1995. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondent-petitioner has drawn our attention to the application (cross-objection) filed by him under Order 41 Rule 19, CPC and argued that the respondent-petitioner has already taken admission in the B.Ed. Course which commenced from 01.07.1995. He has completed his degree course and when he took the admission, this University was recognized and from the perusal of Annexure-3, it is clear that whatever norms were applicable, they were applicable upto 1995-96, therefore, the degree granted to the respondent-petitioner, who has started correspondence course in the year 1995-96, cannot be de-recognized retrospectively. 13. We have gone through the rival arguments made by the learned Counsel for the parties as well as the Judgment passed by this Court in Shah Govardhan Lal Kabra Teachers College (Supra). Hon’ ble Supreme Court has reversed the aforesaid Judgment of this Court and upheld the validity of Section 17(4) of the Act of 1993. Now the question remains whether on the other grounds, the respondent-petitioner can be granted relief or not. Learned Single Judge has not gone into other merits of the case. Thus, we think it appropriate to consider the other merits of the case instead of remanding the matter back to the learned Single Judge. .14. It is admitted position that the respondent-petitioner has taken admission in the B.Ed. correspondence course on 01.07.1995 and pursued the studies in the Session 1995-96 and passed the examination in the year 1995-96 (Annexure-R/1). The Act of 1993 also came into force w.e.f. 01.07.1995. .As per communication dated 10.07.1997, the regulations framed by the Government of India were published in the Gazette of Government of India on 24.02.1996 and the process of recognizing degrees could not be commenced before 24.02.1996. The NCTE also issued communication dated 10.07.1997 and public notice in regard to the institutions concerning the Teachers Education informing the institutions that the applications for recognition are required to be submitted by 17.08.1997 instead of 15.05.1997. The petitioner has also placed on record letter of the Assistant Registrar of Kurukshetra University dated 06.09.1998 wherein it has been said that NCTE vide letter dated 26.02.1996 had informed the University of Kurukshetra that for the present academic Session 1995-96 the status quo was allowed to be maintained. The petitioner has also placed on record letter of the Assistant Registrar of Kurukshetra University dated 06.09.1998 wherein it has been said that NCTE vide letter dated 26.02.1996 had informed the University of Kurukshetra that for the present academic Session 1995-96 the status quo was allowed to be maintained. The petitioner has also placed on record the letter of Regional Director of NCTE addressed to Shri Tirth Raj Rankawat being in the subject matter of the recognition of degree by the Barkatulla Khan University, Bhopal. Looking from this scenario a degree for which the courses were commenced in 1995-96 like that by .the respondent-petitioner, the Act of 1993 is not applicable. 15. From the above facts, it is clear that the respondent-petitioner has taken the admission in the year 1995-96 and status quo was to be maintained for the academic Sessions 1995-96. The respondent-petitioner completed his course in 1995-96 and till the completion of the course by the respondent-petitioner, regulations were not in force. The regulations framed by the Government of India were published in the Gazette of Government of India on 24.02.1996. Thus, the process of recognizing degrees could not be commenced before 24.02.1996. The Act of 1993 has come into force w.e.f. 01.07.1995 but regulations framed were published on 24.02.1996. The process of recognition was started after 17.08.1997. The respondent-petitioner has taken admission in the year 1995-96 and passed the course in the year 1995-96 (Annexure-R/1). The Division Bench of this Court in similarly situated case in Ram Narain vs. State, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2884/1999, alongwith three other writ petitions (Supra), while interpreting Sections 14 and 17 of the Act of 1993 as held as follows:- “The two provisions read together convey in no certain terms that whether under Section 14 or under Section 17, the effect of the commencement of the Act or the refusal of the application for recognition or withdrawal of recognition already granted does not affect the fate of ongoing courses in teachers education offered by any recognised institution or university recognized by law.” “As in the present petitions, all the candidates had obtained requisite certificate of physical training education before the close of academic Session 1995-96, from Nagpur University after having received training in recognised institution their validity remain unaffected by subsequent non-inclusion of Nagpur University amongst the recognised institution by the NCTE.” 16. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid Division Bench Judgment of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2884/1999 alongwith three other petitions (Supra) and the observations made by us hereinabove, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant-respondents are directed to comply with the order passed by learned Single Judge within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.