Judgment 1. By the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1352, the Respondent Bihar School Examination Board was constituted. Section 16 of the said Act authorised the State Government to make rules. In exercise of such power, the State Government made the Bihar School Examination Board Rules, 1963. In Rule 7 thereof it provided that the Board shall on such terms and conditions as. may be laid down by the State Government conduct, amongst others, examinations for obtaining Diploma in Physical Education as well as Certificate in Physical Education. 2. In exercise of such power retained by the State Government, while framing the said Rules, the State Government directed to conduct such examinations of the candidates sponsored only by Institutions recognised by the State Government. Thus recognition of the institution became sine qua non to entitle the institution to sponsor candidates to appear in such examination. There is no dispute that the said Rules and the Act authorised the Board in consultation with the State Government to prescribe the standard of education to be imparted before appearing at such examinations. There is also no dispute that the standard so prescribed was applicable to the Institutions imparting education to the students for appearing at such examinations, and accordingly, remained limited to the State of Bihar. The Petitioner-Institution having achieved such standard was granted recognition by the State Government for the Academic Sessions 1986-87 to 1990-91. The students of the Petitioner-Institution were permitted to appear at the examination conducted by the Respondent-Board in the year 1995 for obtaining such Diploma and Certificate. While one hundred students were permitted to appear at the examination for Certificate in Physical Education, another one hundred students were permitted to appear at the examination for Diploma in Physical Education. Some of these students did not appear at the examination and some of them failed. There is no dispute that the result of those failed students was published in 1996. 3. With effect from 17th August, 1995, National Council fa Teacher Training Act came into force and thereby the Central Legislature established National Council for Teacher Training for the purpose of principally prescribing the standard of education to be imparted in the Institutions for, amongst others, obtaining such Certificate and Diploma in Physical Education. 3. With effect from 17th August, 1995, National Council fa Teacher Training Act came into force and thereby the Central Legislature established National Council for Teacher Training for the purpose of principally prescribing the standard of education to be imparted in the Institutions for, amongst others, obtaining such Certificate and Diploma in Physical Education. The Act, therefore, prescribed that already recognized institutions must apply for obtaining recognition from the National Council for Teacher Training within a period of six months and at the same time provided that the recognition already obtained prior to the coming into foce of the Act will continue for s period of six months. The object of the Act being to standardize the standard of education throughout the country, until such time the Institution in question has obtained such recognition, it shall be deemed that the institution is not competent to impart education of national standard after expiry oi six months from 17.8.1995 i.e. with effect from 17.2.1996. No doubt, before 17.2.1996 the Board could conduct examination of each of the students sponsored by the Petitioner-Institution, having been trained by it, by reason of the law then applicable, whether he had failed in the previous attempt or he did not appear on previous occasion, when he was permitted to appear in such examination. However, the question is, if the Board after 16.8.1996 has conducted such an examination, can such students be sponsored by the Institution which lost its recognition by reason of the mandate of the Central Act with effect from 17.2.1996? 4. In terms of the Rules, as made by ihe State Government under the 1952 Act, there is no doubt that an Institution, as that of the petitioner, recognised by the State Government is competent to sponsor candidates, trained by it, for appearing at the examinations to be conducted by the Respondent-Board, but then the question is, can it be said that the recognition as was granted by the State Government to the Petitioner-Institution prior to coming into force of the Central Act continued to remain in force after 16.2.1996? 5. A look at the Central Act would amply demonstrate that such recognition perished with effect from 17.2.1996. 5. A look at the Central Act would amply demonstrate that such recognition perished with effect from 17.2.1996. With effect from 17.2.1996 it became obligatory on the part of the Respondent-Board to allow only such Institution, which has been recognized by the National Council for Teacher Training, to sponsor candidates, trained by it, to appear in the examination to be conducted by the Respondent-Board. If anything contrary is thought of or conceded, the same would tantamount to continuation of recognition of the Institution even after 17.2.1996, contrary to the specific mandate of the Central Act. In those circumstances, the Institution in question is not entitled to sponsor any candidate, trained by it, for any examination conducted or to be conducted by the Respondent-Board after 17.2.1996 unless the Institution has been recognized by the National Council for Teacher Training. 6. The petitioner contends that there is a judgment of a learned Single Judge delivered on 21st November, 2002 in CWJC No. 9988/2002, which suggests that if an institution was recognised prior to 17.2.1996, it can sponsor candidates for such examination even after 17.2.1996. I do not think that any such pronouncement was made in the said judgment. In the said judgment, the learned Single Judge did not held specifically that such an Institution is still entitled to sponsor candidates. While dealing with the matter the learned Single Judge did not consider either the provisions of the Central Act or the provisions contained in the said Rules. The whole controversy in the said writ petition was whether the Institution in question had legally admitted students for imparting training and thereafter sponsored them to appear at the examination to obtain Certificate in Physical Education and Diploma in Physical Education. 7. It must be kept in mind that when with an object of prescribing a national standard, a Central Act has been made after the time prescribed in the said Act has lapsed, nothing can be done which may be treated as a departure to such national standard, otherwise the whole object of making the national standard by the Central Legislature will go waste and accordingly every effort must be made to uphold such national standard for which the Central Legislature had to make an enactment. 8. 8. In those circumstances, unless the Petitioner-Institution has applied for and obtained recognition from National Council fa Teacher Education, it cannot sponsor any student to appear at any examination to be conducted by the Respondent-Board. The application accordingly fails and the same is dismissed.