Judgment Dipak Misra, J. ( 1. ) In this batch of writ petitions the centripodal issue being the same apart from other ancillary and subsidiary issues, it was thought apposite to hear them analogously and accordingly they have been heard together and are disposed of by a singular order. For the sake of convenience as well as completeness the facts in W.P. No. 16694/2007 are adumbrated herein. The facts of other cases which are imperative to be adumbrated shall be stated in brief at the relevant place in this order. ( 2. ) The petitioners are societies duly registered under the provisions of M.P. Societies Registration Act, 1973 with the purpose of imparting B.Ed. Course. They established B.Ed. Colleges and for that purpose preferred applications for grant of recognition before the competent authority under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for brevity the 1993 Act). As pleaded, they also applied for grant of No Objection Certificate from the State Government which was duly granted to the petitioners-institutions. After obtaining the NOC from the State Government the petitioners-institutions applied for grant of recognition from NCTE and thereafter the NCTE granted recognition as contemplated under Section 14 of the 1993 Act. The Higher Education Department also extended the benefit of No Objection Certificate to the petitioners-institutions and accordingly affiliation was accorded by the Jiwaji University, Gwalior under Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalay Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short the 1973 Act). ( 3. ) It is averred in the writ petition that the NCTE has informed the respondent- University that the petitioners-institutions are the recognized institutions for B.Ed. Course for the academic session 2006-07 and formal order of recognition would be issued after scrutiny of staff list. Despite various correspondence, with the Higher authorities of the NCTE a letter was issued on 30.8.2007 contained in Annexure-P-1 that the recognition granted by NCTE shall remain in force. In essentiality, it is asseverated that the recognition conferred by the NCTE and the affiliation granted by the University are in force. After obtaining of recognition and affiliation the petitioners- institution granted admission to the students as per the intake capacity fixed by the NCTE. The students were provisionally admitted on the basis of the counselling conducted by Rajya Shiksha Kendra (State Education Centre) which was completed on 30.9.2006 as per Annexure-P-2. After obtaining of recognition and affiliation the petitioners- institution granted admission to the students as per the intake capacity fixed by the NCTE. The students were provisionally admitted on the basis of the counselling conducted by Rajya Shiksha Kendra (State Education Centre) which was completed on 30.9.2006 as per Annexure-P-2. After admission the students were prosecuting their studies and completed B.Ed course for the academic session 2006-07. A list of the students was duly submitted before the State Education Centre was called for by the University vide letter dated 31.7.2007. As put forth, the students were admitted as per the intake capacity fixed by the University and, therefore, criteria participation of their students in the forthcoming examination for B.Ed. Course to be conducted for the academic session 2006-07 was beyond any kind of remora. Despite no impediment Jiwaji University, Gwalior deliberately did not allot 100 examination forms as a consequence of which some of the students were not in a position to undertake the examination which was held subsequently. It is contended that the University has declared a programme for B.Ed examination of 2007 which has commended 04.12.2007. ( 4. ) It is also set out in the petition that the constitutional validity of Rule 1.5.1 (a) of the Rules was called in question. This Court held the rule to be constitutionally valid. It is worth noting that the matter travelled to the the Apex Court from a writ appeal and their Lordships passed the interim relief to which we shall advert to at a later stage. It is also urged in the petition that some of the writ petitions have been disposed of relying on the interim direction of the Apex Court and on that basis parity is claimed. In this backdrop prayer has been made to issue 100 examination forms to each institutions and to permit them to participate in the forthcoming examination 2006-07 and command the respondent-University not to put any hindrance in the way of running of petitioners-institutions in future and to grant such relief as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 5. ( 5. ) At this juncture it is obligatory on our part to state that as far as petitioner No.4, Guru Ramdas Shiksha Mahavidyalaya Satyadev Nagar, is concerned earlier it had filed a Writ Petition No. 4280/2007 which has been disposed by a learned Single Judge the pertained to similar grievance as ha i been agitated in the present petition. Ordinarily we would have looked at the order passed by the learned Single Judge but Mr. M.P.S.Raghuvanshi, learned counsel submitted additional grievance has been agitated in this writ petition. Mr.Tapan Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent - Jiwaji University, Gwalior fairly conceded that he has no objection if the additional grievance is considered. We put it on record so that there is no anomaly. ( 6. ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-University contending, inter alia, that the University has conducted verification with regard to the admissions of the students on the basis of the instructions given by the State Government. The State Government had given the responsibility to the Principal, Government P.G. Education College, Gwalior asking him for verification of eligibility of the students. The Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 04.10.2007 took a decision to conduct examination of the students after due verification by the competent authority. The University received a letter dated 13.11.2007 from the Office of the Principal Government P.G. College and in pursuance of the said list forms were given to the Colleges. It is highlighted that the District Magistrate Gwalior is conducting an enquiry with regard to the filing of domicile certificate submitted along with the forms and the said enquiry is still in progress. ( 7. ) We have heard Mr.Brain Da Silva, learned senior counsel along with Mr.Sajid Akhtar, Mr.M.P.S.Raghuvanshi, Mr.O.P.Namdco, Mr.J.K.Pille and Mr.Yogesh Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners, Mr.Tapan Trivedi, learned counsel for respondent- Jiwaji University, Gwalior. At this stage we may note with profit that though the State Government has not been arrayed as party, we have heard Mr.Deepak Awasthy, learned Government Advocate as certain arrangement were sought to be made in course of hearing for which his assistance has become necessituous. ( 8. ) It is not disputed at the Bar that the University has got admissions verified through the Principal, Government Education College, Gwalior on the basis of the instructions issued by the competent authority of the State Government. ( 8. ) It is not disputed at the Bar that the University has got admissions verified through the Principal, Government Education College, Gwalior on the basis of the instructions issued by the competent authority of the State Government. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the verification has not been done properly and, in fact, it has been done in a hurry. It is urged that all the students have been properly admitted and there is no breach of any provision in their admission. It is argued that no false certificate has been produced but contrivance has been taken recourse to, to verify the same so that the matter would be procrastinated as a result of which the students would ultimately suffer. Learned counsel further submitted that the Apex Court has passed an interim order protecting the interest of the students and this Court in certain cases has followed the same and passed interim order and, therefore, similar interim order should be passed and the writ petition should be disposed of. It is also highlighted that the State Government has issued a letter dated 05.4.2007 to follow the direction issued by the Apex Court on 26.3.2007. A letter has been issued by the Deputy Secretary, Higher Education Department, Madhya Pradesh to all the Vice Chancellors and Registrars of the University in that regard. ( 9. ) At this stage it is appropriate to refer to Rule 1.5.1 (a) of the Rules. The English translation of the Rule, reads as under:- "1.5.1(a) 75% of the total seats in B.Ed. Course shall be for students residing in Madhya Pradesh. Remaining 25% of the seats would be for students, who are not residents of Madhya Pradesh. The seats reserved for the students of Madhya Pradesh shall not, in any case, be converted for students, residing out of Madhya Pradesh." ( 10. ) The said rule has been held to be constitutionally valid in the case of Preston College, Gwalior and another Vs. State of M.P. and others in W.P. No. 11544/2006 decided on 27.2.2007. The Division Bench has expressed the opinion as under. - "27. To conclude, the norms, guidelines and standards for admission to the institutions recognized by the NCET under section 14, of the Act, are not only objective but are also mandatory in nature. State of M.P. and others in W.P. No. 11544/2006 decided on 27.2.2007. The Division Bench has expressed the opinion as under. - "27. To conclude, the norms, guidelines and standards for admission to the institutions recognized by the NCET under section 14, of the Act, are not only objective but are also mandatory in nature. Further, the residential requirement for admission to 75% of the total seats made available to such institutions is not violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution. This apart, the prohibition that any seat remaining vacant against the State quota shall not be made available to any non- resident of the State is also constitutionally permissible, as it does not offend Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution. It is relevant to note that the rule 1.5.1(a) also does not provide that remaining unfilled seats in the All-India Quota could be reverted and be filled by the students from M.P. The Rule, therefore, is neither violative of the Constitution nor contravenes any guidelines laid down by the Apex Court, in this regard. 28. The net result of the foregoing discussions is that the Rules in general and Rule No. 1.5.1 (a), in particular, and the admission policy framed by the State Government are constitutionally valid. Moreover, the State is not competent to relax any norm or standard fixed by NCET. As such, the grievance of the intervener is also mis-conceived. 29. In the light of the aforesaid, the petitions stand dismissed, but with no order as to costs. As a result thereof, the interveners application is also rejected." ( 11. ) In the Special Leave Petition the Apex Court has passed the following order:- "Until further orders, the students who have been provisionally admitted shall not be disturbed and shall be allowed to appear in the examination subject to the result of this special leave petition." ( 12. ) What is perceptible from the present batch of writ petitions is that there is no challenge to the vires of the Rules but it is contended that the University is not issuing forms. Per contra, the stand of the University is that the students have not been admitted in a proper manner, because the State Government had permitted the Colleges to admit students who had not gone through counselling. Per contra, the stand of the University is that the students have not been admitted in a proper manner, because the State Government had permitted the Colleges to admit students who had not gone through counselling. It is submitted by Mr.Tapan Trivedi that the State Government has the jurisdiction to issue such a direction but the Rules could not have been violated. To elaborate submission of Mr.Tapan Trivedi is that the Colleges should have admitted students from Madhya Pradesh and their domicile certificates should have been verified. It is put forth by him that there is some cavil with regard the aspect whether the admissions have been taken before the cut off date i.e. 30.9.2006. In quint-essentiality, the stand of the University is that the forms that have been verified by the Principal Government College clearly show that certain students are not entitled because of the operation of the Rule and also because of production of false certificate and certain other ancillary factors. ( 13. ) Three questions emerge for consideration in this batch of writ petitions, namely, (i) whether the verification done by the Principal, Government College, Gwalior and the enquiry which is going on by the Additional District Magistrate, Gwalior shall be allowed to continue for long or that must be brought to a logical end; (ii) whether the institutions which have admitted, 25% students in violation of Rule 1.5.1(a) should be allowed to undertake admission and thereafter undertake the examination; and (iii) whether the students who have already been allowed to undertake examination by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court in certain cases should have been allowed and what benefit should be conferred on them. ( 14. ) As far as first aspect is concerned initially though a serious debate had taken place, eventually a consensus has been arrived at. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Tapan Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent- University and Mr. Deepak Awasthy, learned Government Advocate that the verification conducted by the Principal, Government College and the enquiry that is conducted by the Additional District Magistrate should be conducted by a Higher Powered committee which shall consist of the Vice-Chancellor of the University, Commissioner of the Gwalior Division and the Registrar of the University. It is further agreed that the Vice Chancellor shall be the Chairman of the Committee. It is further agreed that the Vice Chancellor shall be the Chairman of the Committee. The Additional District Magistrate who is conducting the enquiry shall be the Nodal Officer as he is conducting enquiry in the field. The Committee shall decide the verification from all spectrums within four weeks from today. The Committee before passing any order shall hear the concerned Principal or the nominee of the institution and the student who is likely to be aggrieved by the decision. This Committee shall, as agreed to by Mr.Deepak Awasthy, learned Government Advocate, scrutinize in respect of other institutions, if so advised. No other committee shall be constituted by the State Government as conceded to by Mr.Deepak Awasthy, learned Government Advocate. ( 15. ) Issues nos. 1 and 2 can be put in a singular compartments. In some of the cases the Division Bench of this Court has passed the following order: - "Mr.Prabodh Tripathi for the petitioners. Mr.Shailendra Jain for the respondent No. Tissue notice. Mr.Shailendra Jain accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 and 2. Return be filed. In the meanwhile, 100 examination forms for the students of the petitioner institution will be furnished to the petitioner and the students of the petitioner-institute will be allowed to participate in the forthcoming 2006-07 B.Ed. Examination in view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court on 30.4.2007 in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 7236/2007. We further direct that the result of the students of the petitioner institution who take the examination will not be declared until further orders." ( 16. ) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that they should be allowed to take up their examination in the like manner as has been directed by the Division Bench. Resisting the same it is contended by Mr.Tapan Trivedi, learned counsel for the University that the Rule having been held constitutionally valid the University cannot grant admission beyond 25%. It is also urged by him that unless the verification is completed it is impossible to give the said benefit. ( 17. ) At this juncture we have been apprised at the Bar that in cases where verifications are going, in pursuance of the interim order passed by the Division Bench they have been allowed to undertake the examination. In other cases where no interim order has been passed they have not been allowed to undertake examination. ( 17. ) At this juncture we have been apprised at the Bar that in cases where verifications are going, in pursuance of the interim order passed by the Division Bench they have been allowed to undertake the examination. In other cases where no interim order has been passed they have not been allowed to undertake examination. In some cases where verification has been completed by the Principal, Government College, Gwalior they have also been allowed to undertake examination. We have already constituted, on a broad consensus, a High Powered Committee. The Committee shall verify with regard to certain aspects after following the principles of natural justice within four weeks hence. After verification is over the students who are eligible to appear in the examination, a separate examination shall be held by the University within a period of six weeks therefrom. It is hereby made clear that the University shall not seek any extension for the same. ( 18. ) The other aspect that emanates for consideration is whether the students who have taken admission in the Colleges could not have taken admission because of the Rule 1.5.1(a) of the Rules. We have already reproduced the order passed by the Apex Court. We have also quoted the order passed by the Division Bench. We are absolutely conscious that this Court had declared the Rules to be intra vires. Once the Rule has been declared intra vires this Court would have ordinarily restrained from permitting the students to take up the examination but, a pregnant one, their Lordships of the Apex Court have passed the interlocutory order which we have reproduced above. Following the same the Division Bench has passed the order which we too we have quoted above. In view of the aforesaid we direct if the students who though come within the ambit of 25% of the prohibitory part of the Rule would also take part in the examination and their results shall be subject to the order passed by the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7236/2007. ( 19. ) It is submitted by Mr.J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioners, that once there has been verification, no further verification need not be done. Such submission has left us totally unimpressed. The issue of forms would not create any impediment for verification if other facts come into forefront. ( 19. ) It is submitted by Mr.J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioners, that once there has been verification, no further verification need not be done. Such submission has left us totally unimpressed. The issue of forms would not create any impediment for verification if other facts come into forefront. To elucidate: if a candidate belonging to Allahabad has produced a certificate that he belongs to Rewa then it would come in the compartment of fraud and it is settled in law the fraud vitiates everything be it ecclesiastical or mundane. In addition, it is also directed that the Committee may verify with regard to the domicile and the cases which are genuine shall be kept differently as that would be subject to the result of the order passed by the Supreme Court. ( 20. ) Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Petitions disposed of.