ORDER 1. This hatch of writ petitions being interconnected, interlinked and founded on singular base, it was heard analogously and is disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts in WP No. 6322/2005 are adumbrated herein. 2. The petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam. The said society was brought into existence with a view to impart education at school and college level and to uplift the educational standard in the society. The petitioner society has been running a college, namely, Intention College of Professional Studies. Various assertions have been put forth about the type of education which is imparted by the college in the year 2004. The petitioner society conceived an idea of establishing B.Ed. course in the college for the academic session 2005-06. It has obtained No Objection Certificate from the Department of School Education of the State of Madhya Pradesh as contained in Annexure P-1. In the said certificate, as set forth, it was not mentioned that the petitioner was required to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Higher Education Department. 3. According to the writ petitioner, the National Council for Teacher Education, (for short "the Council") granted recognition to the college by its letter dated 27.6.2005 as per Annexure P-2. The college has been trying to get affiliation from the respondent No. 4 Barkatullah University. Bhopal, inasmuch as it had intimated the University that it had applied to the NCTE for recognition. After receiving recognition, it applied for affiliation to the University on 20.7.2005 but the University had not issued any communication as a consequence of which the petitioner institution has been denied to participate in the counselling. It is contended that No Objection Certificate from the Higher Education Department, though not necessary the petitioner had applied for the same to the said department by depositing the required fees but there has been no response so far. It is the stand in the petition that the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (in short "the Act") was enacted with a view to establish National Council for Teacher Education and to achieve a planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country and also to regulate and maintain the norms and standards in the teacher education system. Emphasis has been laid on the dictionary clause of the Act. Emphasis has been laid on the dictionary clause of the Act. Section 12 of the Act deals with the functioning of the Council. Section 14 enables that Council. Section recognition and on that basis it is averred that once the recognition is granted to any particular educational institution, the University is bound to grant affiliation. It is putforth that by non-grant of affiliation by the University and non-response of the State Government for grant of No Objection Certificate the petitioner has suffered immensely inasmuch as it would lose the benefit of recognition and admitting the students for the academic session 2005-06. It is putforth that the first counselling has commenced with effect from 15.7.2005 and the second counselling would commence from 2.8.2005 and the respondent No. 3 M.P. State Council of School Educational Research and Training has refused to permit the college to participate in the counselling solely on the ground that the College has not obtained the No Objection Certificate from the Higher Education Department. In this backdrop, a prayer has been made to issue appropriate writ commanding the respondent No.4 University to grant affiliation and to direct the respondent No.3 to grant permission to the college to participate in the counselling and the respondent No. 2 to grant No Objection Certificate. 4. At the very outset it is condign to mention that the learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the facts are almost similar in each case inasmuch as all the institutions have obtained recognition from the Council under the Act. This Court has been apprised that in certain matters that were filed before the Gwalior Bench an interim order has been passed for permitting the students in the counselling. In view of the factual backdrop this Court sought the assistance of Mr. Harish Agnihotri,. learned Government Advocate, and Mr. A.S. Raizada, learned counsel who ordinarily appears for the respondent No. 4 University. Learned counsel for the parties agreed to argue the matter as it was thought seemly to put the controversy to rest and further the question that emerges should be really dealt without entering into factual score. 5. In view of the aforesaid. I have heard Mr. Kishore Shrivastava. Mr. Imtiaz Husain. Mr. K.K Trivedi. Mr. S.C. Sharma, Mr. Manoj Chansoriya and Mr. Pushpendra Singh learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate for the respondent State and Mr. 5. In view of the aforesaid. I have heard Mr. Kishore Shrivastava. Mr. Imtiaz Husain. Mr. K.K Trivedi. Mr. S.C. Sharma, Mr. Manoj Chansoriya and Mr. Pushpendra Singh learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate for the respondent State and Mr. Ajay Raizada, learned counsel for respondent Barkatullah University. I may hasten to add here that though certain matters relating to other Universities were listed. it was thought appropriate to hear and dispose of the matter as similar matters have been disposed of. Be it noted the statute may be different but the position is the same. The State has a role. The University has a role. In view of the aforesaid instead of waiting for the said Universities it was thought condign to finally dispose of the matter so that they are not compelled to remain in a state of uncertainty and fluidity and the controversy is put to rest. In some other cases the University is not a party. However, as the University has a role the petitioner shall do the needful/qua University as per the directions made at a latter stage. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised three certain contentions, namely, (i) once the recognition has been granted the affiliation from the University is not necessary; (ii) when No Objection Certificate has been obtained from the School Education Department, further No Objection Certificate from the Higher Education Department is not requisite; (iii) the State Government and the University cannot act arbitrarily to deny the participation in the counselling to frustrate the academic session of the institutions belonging to the societies; and (iv) once the recognition has been granted. the obtaining of No Objection Certificate is absolutely unnecessary as the State has no role in the matter. Even assuming that No Objection Certificate is necessary, once it is obtained from the Department of School. Education, the same is not necessary to be obtained from the Higher Education Department. 7. Mr. Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate, per contra, has contended that the No Objection Certificate issued by the School Education Department is meant for schools and No Objection Certificate has to be obtained from the Higher Education Department as the B.Ed. comes in the category of higher education. It is his further submission that certain requisite criteria are to be fulfilled for grant of such certificate. 8. Mr. comes in the category of higher education. It is his further submission that certain requisite criteria are to be fulfilled for grant of such certificate. 8. Mr. Raizada, learned counsel for the University, countering the submissions put forth by Mr. Kishore Shrivaslava, has submitted that the affiliation of the University is a must and it cannot be brushed aside on the ground that institutions have received recognition from the Council. It is his further submission that certain condition precedents are to be satisfied for grant of affiliation. No Objection Certificate from the Commissioner of Higher Education Department is necessary as per the Statute No. 27 which deals with admission to colleges/institutions. Lastly, it was contended by Mr. Raizada that the cut off date for grant of affiliation is over, as provided under the Statute, and hence, it is not possible to grant affiliation. 9. At this juncture, I may profitably refer to the decision rendered in the case of WP No. 3809/2005 and other connected matters wherein this Court dealt with the role of Council and the University. Be it placed on record that the said case arose with regard to counselling and the authority of the University to withdraw the affiliation when there is violation of rules relating to admission which deal with causation of an inquiry of domicile certificate. This Court, in the said case in paragraph 28, recorded certain conclusions. Some of them which are relevant for the present purpose are reproduced below: "(i) The recognition is granted under the Act but that does not necessarily mean that the University has no power to grant affiliation or withdraw the same as that has been provided in Statute 28. (ii) As conceded the BACMP Rules are applicable to the present institutions to run the B.Ed. course. (iii) The grant of eligibility certificate by the University does not annihilate the responsibility of the college to verify the documents." 10. In view of the aforesaid the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that once the recognition is granted the affiliation is not necessary has to be repelled. As far as the grant of No Objection Certificat is concerned the Statute No. 27 (7) is relevant which reads as under: "27(7). The application for affiliation in a new course/subject/faculty or post graduate class shall be accompanied by a certificate from the Commissioner. As far as the grant of No Objection Certificat is concerned the Statute No. 27 (7) is relevant which reads as under: "27(7). The application for affiliation in a new course/subject/faculty or post graduate class shall be accompanied by a certificate from the Commissioner. Higher Education showing that the Commissioner Higher Education has permitted the addition of new course or subject or opening of new faculty or post graduate classes sought by the institution or college. (a) The fees shall not be refunded unless the application is withdrawn before an inspection has taken place." 11. In this context. Mr. Raizada learned counsel for the University, has also brought my attention to a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education and another, [ (2003) 3 SCC 321 ]. In the said case, their Lordships scanned the provisions of section 14 of the Act and referred to sections 21 and 32 of the Act. Their Lordships further referred to the Regulation, namely, National Council for Teacher Education (Application for Recognition, the Manner for Submission, Determination of Conditions for Recognition of Institutions and permission to start Now Course or Training) Regulations, 1995 framed under section 32 of the Act. Regulation 8 deals with condition of recognition. Thereafter, their Lordships referred to regulation 6 framed by the Council on 13.11.2002 which is known as NCTE (Form of Application for Recognition, the Time of Submission of Application, Determination of Norms and Standards for Recognition of Teacher Education Programmes and Permission to Start New Course or Training) Regulations, 2002. Regulation 6 deals with requirement of No Objection Certificate from the State Government/UT Administration. Eventually, in paragraph 19, their Lordships expressed the view as under: "19. Regulation 6(ii) of these Regulations provides that the endorsement of the State Government/Union Territory Administration in regard to issue of NOC will be considered by the Regional Committee while taking a decision on the application for recognition. This provision shows that even if the NOC is not granted by the State Government or Union Territory concerned and the same is refused, the entire matter will be examined by the Regional Committee while taking a decision on the application for recognition. This provision shows that even if the NOC is not granted by the State Government or Union Territory concerned and the same is refused, the entire matter will be examined by the Regional Committee while taking a decision on the application for recognition. Therefore, the grant or refusal of an NOC by the State Government or Union Territory is not conclusive or binding and the views expressed by the State Government will be considered by the Regional Committee while taking the decision on the application for grant of recognition. In view of these new Regulations the challenge raised to the validity of regulations 5(e) and (f) has been further whittled down. The role of State Government is certainly important for supplying the requisite data which is essential for formation of opinion by the Regional Committee while taking a decision under sub-section (3) of section 14 of the Act Therefore no exception can be taken to such a course of action." Thereafter, in paragraph 21 their Lordship held as under: "21. .....It will therefore he proper that the Council frames appropriate regulations fixing the time-limit within which a decision should he taken by the State Government on the application moved by an institution for grant of an NOC.........." 12. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of law there remains no scintilla of doubt that the grant of NOC by the State Government is necessary. There can be no trace of doubt that once NOC from the Stare Government is necessary it is the Higher Education Department which has to give the same as B.Ed. is higher education. The Department of School Education might have given NOC hut it is imperative to obtain NOC from the Higher Education Department. 13. The next facet that requires consideration is whether because of the cut off date the affiliation should be refused. The Statute No. 27(7) definitely fixes a date and that date is over. But this batch of cases has special circumstances. They got the recognition much after the cut off date. That apart the counselling is going on. In view of the aforesaid, their applications for affiliation should not be rejected on the ground that they have been tiled after the cut off date. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, I am Inclined to think that a situation has cropped up which has to he dealt with in a pragmatic manner. That apart the counselling is going on. In view of the aforesaid, their applications for affiliation should not be rejected on the ground that they have been tiled after the cut off date. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, I am Inclined to think that a situation has cropped up which has to he dealt with in a pragmatic manner. As the counselling is going on, the institutions of the petitioner societies should not be deprived of the same. Simultaneously, they have to abide by the norms and the conditions. Thus, the students who are participating in the counselling can be allotted to the petitioners institutions on the following terms and conditions: (a) Each of the petitioners shall apply to the Higher Education Department for grant of No Objection Certificate within seven days hence, by tiling the requisite fees, if necessary. The said Department shall scrutinize the same as per law and if there is any inadequacy or deficiency, the same shall be given in writing to the institution which would be fulfilled within a reasonable period of time to be fixed by the respondent No.2. (b) The petitioners shall apply for grant of affiliation to the University. The University shall initially grant provisional affiliation and thereafter scrutinize the matter and point out deficiency and inadequacy which shall be complied with by the institution within a reasonable period of time to be fixed by the University. (c) The students shall be admitted in the colleges as per their quota for the academic session 2005-06 and if eventually, the institutions are not granted affiliation or No Objection Certificate for some or the other reason, they shall be permitted to appear in the examination deeming that they are admitted by making special arrangement which shall be done by the University. 14. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.