( 1 ) SINCE common question of law and fact arise for consideration in all these petitions, by consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) THE petitioners have made application to the competent authorities for grant of Non Objection Certivicate to enable them to seek grant of recognition to start B. Ed/d. Ed. , Course for the academic year 2004-2005. The State Government has accordingly issued No Objection Certificate. IN. W. P. No. 26876/2004, No Objection Certificate was issued on 31. 12. 2003, in W. P. No. 28360/2004, No Objection Certificate was issued on 19. 02. 2004 and in W. P. No. 30099/2004, No Objection Certificate was issued on 12. 04. 2004. The petitioners have made necessary applications is prescribed form to the N. C. T. E. on or before 31. 12. 2003. Since the No Objection Certificate was issued by the State Government on 31. 12. 2003 in the first case, and after 31. 12. 203, in the other cases, they have produced the said No Objection Certificate after 31. 12. 2003 before the N. C. T. E. They have filed these writ petitions quashing the endorsements issued by the N. C. T. E. holding that the application submitted by the petitioners with No Objection Certificate of the State Government cannot be processed for the academic Sessions 2004-2005 and that it will be carried forward for the next academic year. ( 3 ) I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have made applications in time before the University or the State Government as the case may be and that the State Government has not issued No Objection Certificate on or before 31. 12. 2003. It is argued that Regulation 2 bars the Regulation Committee of N. C. T. E. from processing the applications without a No Objection Certificate. Therefore, the Regional Committee should not have processed the applications without the No Objection Certificate. It is further submitted that the guidelines have not been framed for considering the application for issue of No Objection Certificate. Since the petitioners have already produced the No Objection Certificate their applications should also be considered for grant or recognition of the academic year 2004-05. It is further submitted that the guidelines have not been framed for considering the application for issue of No Objection Certificate. Since the petitioners have already produced the No Objection Certificate their applications should also be considered for grant or recognition of the academic year 2004-05. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, Learned Counsel for N. C. T. E. submits that No Objection Certificate is one of the essential documents to be filed along with the application on or before 31. 12. 2003 as per the Regulation. Since the Regulation have the force of law the processing of incomplete applications are not permissible in law. It is further argued that the applications will be carried forward to the next academic year i. e. for 2005-2006. ( 6 ) I have carefully considered the arguments of the Learned Counsel made at the Bar and considered the materials placed on record. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioners have made applications before 31. 12. 2003 for grant of recognition to the Regulation Committee of the N. C. T. E. They have also made applications to the Authorities concerned for issuance of No Object Certificate. In one of the cases No Objection Certificate issued on 31. 12. 2003 and in the other two cases No Objection Certificate was issued after 31. 12. 2003. In W. P. No. 3009/2004, admittedly petitioner has not created an endowment fund of Rs. 5. 00 lakhs in addition to non-production of No Objection Certificate in time. Regulation 7 provides the time limit for making an application. It states that every institution seeking recognition to start a Course or training in Teacher Education or an existing Institution seeking permission to start a New Course or training and/or increase in intake shall make an application in the prescribed form so as to reach the concerned Regional Committee on or before 31st of December every year. Appendix 1-B provides for production of list of essential documents along with the application. No Objection Certificate from the State Government is one of the essential documents to be furnished along with the application. Appendix 1-B provides for production of list of essential documents along with the application. No Objection Certificate from the State Government is one of the essential documents to be furnished along with the application. Note (i) to Appendix 1-B states that if the application is found incomplete i. e. without the essential documents the Institution may be asked to make good deficiencies in an application on or before the last date prescribed in the Regulation and Note (ii) states that in the event when the deficiencies in an application got removed only after the last date, the application of the Institution shall be carried forward by the Regional Committee for consideration for subsequent academic year, i. e. for the Course that would be offered one year later. ( 8 ) THIS Court in the case of OXFORD TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTION, BANGALORE AND OTHERS VS. NATIONAL COUNCIL TEACHER EDUCATION, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, BANGALORE, reported in ILR 2004 KAR 2342 has held that the Regulations have the force of law. It is further held that production of No Objection Certificate along with the application before the last date for submission of the application is statutorily prescribed by the Regulations and the Regulations have to be obeyed. It is held as follows: 13. The reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it very clear that an application from every institution seeking recognition to start a course or training in Teacher Education shall be accompanied by a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the State or Union Territory in which the Institution is located. The application without NOC/endorsement of State Government / UTA shall not be processed by the concerned Regional Committee of NCTE* xxx xxx xxx 17. IN view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the Regulations made under the NCTE Act and consequent minute details worked out regarding form of how to make an application for recognition, the time limit of submission of application, determination of norms and standards of recognition as contained in Regulation 2002 and amended Regulations 2003 and other minute details worked there under would have the force of law and it has to be obeyed. ( 9 ) IT is clear from the aforesaid decision that an application filed on or before 31. 12. 2003 for grant of recognition without a No Objection Certificate is an incomplete application. ( 9 ) IT is clear from the aforesaid decision that an application filed on or before 31. 12. 2003 for grant of recognition without a No Objection Certificate is an incomplete application. The question therefore is whether an incomplete application should be processed by the Regional Committee of the NCTE. ( 10 ) IN the case of DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS. S. R. M. INSTITUTE OF SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY AND ANOTHER, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 1997 the Honble Supreme Court has held that an incomplete application cannot be processed by the Central Government or the D. C. I. and that High Court should not have passed an interim direction to process the incomplete application. The relevant portion is as follows: 10. In this case, the High Court made an interim order to complete the processing of the application including inspection even in the absence of the permission or essentiality certificate from the State Government in terms of the Regulations framed by the Dental Council of India. The process of the Courts or the process of law should not be allowed to subvert the law. In cases of recognition of Dental College or starting of higher courses, this Court has in several cases including Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka and others, 2003 (6) SCC 697 ; State of Maharashtra v. Indian Medical Assocation and others, 2002 (1) SCC 589 , etc. held that they are of mandatory character and have got to be complied with. When that is the position in law, the High Court ought not to have made an interim order to process the application even in the absence of the permission or essentiality certificate because the application will not be complete without being accompanied by permission or essentiality certificate by the State Government along with certain other documents. An incomplete application cannot be processed either by the Central Government or the Dental Council. The argument advanced on behalf of the respondents will set at naught the law that in certain cases the Courts need not insist on production of permission or essentiality certificate of the State Government, particularly, when the regulations insist upon the same. ( 11 ) IT is clear from the above that the petitioners applications seeking grant of recognition for the academic year 2004-2005 is incomplete as on 31. 12. 2003. ( 11 ) IT is clear from the above that the petitioners applications seeking grant of recognition for the academic year 2004-2005 is incomplete as on 31. 12. 2003. It is also clear that the Regulations framed by the NCTE has the force of law and this Court cannot direct NCTE to process the incomplete applications contrary to the Regulations framed by the NCTE. It is no doubt true that the NCTE is required to frame guidelines for granting No Objection Certificate by the State Government. A time limit is required to be fixed for grant of No Objection Certificate keeping in mind that the last date fixed for making an application to the NCTE for grant of recognition is 31st December every year for the Course or training commencing in the next academic session. Since the application of the petitioner was incomplete as on 31. 12. 2003, it is not just and proper to direct the NCTE to process the application for the academic session 2004-2005. There is no merit in these petitions. They are accordingly dismissed. --- *** --- .