Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner-institution is a minority institution which had set up a Minority Teachers Training College for preparing students for the B. Ed degree examination of Magadh University. The College was established in the year 1988 with permission for such establishment granted by the State Government on 20.08.1988 (Annexure-1). Thereafter, apparently in terms of the Bihar Non-Government Physical Training College and Non-Government Teachers Training College and Non-Government Primary Teachers Training College (Control and Regulation) Act 1982, the College, having already been granted permission for establishment by the Government, was granted recognition and permission to conduct the said course for two sessions that is 1988-89 and 1989-90 vide order dated 21.11.1988 (Annexure-2). The State Government, thereafter, by its letter dated 13.02.1991 (Annexure-3) extended the recognition up to Session 1990-1991. While doing so, the petitioner institution was informed that it was required to get 2.50 acres of land in its name. No other shortcomings or conditions were pointed out or imposed. On 19.09.1991, Magadh University recommended for grant of affiliation to the said institution for the said course for the five years period that is 1988-1989 to 1993-94. It would, thus, be seen that by this time, the petitioner institution had both recognition and affiliation in respect of session up to 1990-1991 but thereafter up to 1993-94, there was only affiliation by the University concerned but the matter with regard to recognition by the State Government was kept pending for meeting the requirement of land of 2.50 acres. On 6.12.1991, the petitioner Institution informed the concerned respondent that it has fulfilled the condition of land and, as such, permanent recognition be granted. As usual for reasons undisclosed, State Government either totally slept over the matter or was not inclined to move its feet. After almost two years, it woke up and informed the authorities and the petitioner-institution that for the process of extension of recognition Beyond the session 1090-91 an inspection team was feeing constituted, The inspection team then visited the institution and apparently submitted its report, On 24.03.1094, the petitioner-institution was informed that the State Government had granted recognition, Curiously for reasons undisclosed, it was neither said that the recognition so granted was permanent nor was it said that the recognition was limited to any particular session. This was material as the grant of recognition after the session 1990-91 was under consideration of the State Government. This was material as the grant of recognition after the session 1990-91 was under consideration of the State Government. In the meantime, as affiliation had already been granted by the University and the only requirement pointed out by the State Government with regard to land also having been complied with students were admitted to subsequent sessions, their examinations taken by the University and results published by the University. In 1993, the National Council for Teachers Education Act was enacted but the regulations thereunder implementing the said Act was made in 1995 though the Act came into force with effect from 17.08.1995. It is not in dispute that the NCTE has granted permanent recognition for subsequent sessions. It appears that suddenly the State Government woke up from deep slumber and wrote to the institution on 29.01.1997 (Annexure-10) that the permanent recognition granted by the State Government by its letter dated 24.03.1994 in which there was no mention of session should be understood as for session 1994-95 and not retrospectively presumably on the basis that the inspection was conducted in the period 1993-94. It is this action of the State Government which is challenged before this Court. 3. At the initial stage, National Council for Teachers Education was made a party though the dispute did not relate to it nor any relief is claimed against it. The learned counsel appearing for National Council for Teachers Education has very fairly stated that the petitioner-institution has been granted permanent recognition under the Central Act and is continuing to enjoy the same. State has filed a counter affidavit. Apart from stating the facts, no reason has been given by the State as to why recognition having been granted up to session 1991, it was not extended immediately nor institution was told to shut down pending in any enquiry. No reason is disclosed as to why even though the institution was found fit in all other respect for grant of permanent recognition such recognition was restricted to the period 1994-95 and not retrospectively from 1991-92. Further, no reason is disclosed why this strange step of granting temporary recognition for a few years at a time was taken. 4. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their consent, this writ petition Is now being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 5. Further, no reason is disclosed why this strange step of granting temporary recognition for a few years at a time was taken. 4. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their consent, this writ petition Is now being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 5. From the facts stated above, which are not in dispute, it is clear that the petitioner-institution has no problems up to the session 1990-91. Thereafter, it has only affiliation of the University up to 1993-94 but no recognition from the State, Another fact came out is that the only reason why permanent affiliation was not being granted was that the institution had to acquire 2.50 acres of land which would be apparent from the communication of the State Government dated 13.02.1991 (Annexure-3). Even this condition was complied and Government was informed by petitioners letter dated 6.12.1991 (Annexure-5). This is not in dispute. Now what is apparent is that the Government suddenly went into deep slumber. It woke up and after two years ordered for an inspection. It apparently got a favourable inspection report and granted recognition. In my view, this recognition which was granted would be deemed to be recognition for the period 1991-92 to 1994-95 as it was recognition for this period that was a matter for consideration pending before the State Government. Petitioner had nothing to do with it. They had complied with the condition and informed the authorities. The State authorities were not under control of the petitioner. That being so, it is apparent that merely because the State authorities chose to go into deep slumber having woken up they have chosen now to say virtually that because I went to sleep you must suffer. This, in my view, is antithesis of rule of law. Such a situation has been visualised long back and answered appropriately in the case of All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income-tax since, AIR 1954 Bom 232 in the words of Chief Justice Chagla : "But the most surprising contention is put forward by the Department that because their own officer failed to discharge his statutory duty, the assessee is deprived of his right which the law has given to him under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 24. In other words, the Department wants to benefit from and wants to take advantage of its own default. (2) of Sec. 24. In other words, the Department wants to benefit from and wants to take advantage of its own default. It is an elementary principle of law that no person - we take it that the Income-tax Department is included in that definition - can put forward his own default in defence to a right asserted by the other party. A person cannot say that the party claiming the right is deprived of that right because "I have committed a default and the right is lost because of that default." 6. What is more curious is that permanent resolution having been communicated by letter dated 24.03.1994 (Annexure-8) why after three years suddenly, the State woke up and amended the said letter restricting the recognition only to one session whereas admittedly at that time, the matter was pending in respect of sessions beginning 1991-92 onwards. No reason in support thereof is even disclosed either in the said communication or in the counter affidavit. In my view, whatever, may be the position, it is clearly a case of malice in law as held by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. S. R.Venkataraman V/s. Union of India and another since, AIR 1979 SC 49 . The decision to limit the recognition cannot be supported either in law or in fact. The decision, as communicated by letter dated 29.01.1997 (Annexure-10), is hereby quashed. It is clarified that the decision as communicated by letter dated 24.03.1994 (Annexure-8) would mean to be recognition for the sessions 1991-92 to 1994-95 inclusive. Consequently, the University would now be obliged to issue final certificates and degrees for the students of the petitioner-institution for the session 1991-92 to 1994-95. 7. Before parting, I wish to bring on record the arbitrary action of the State Government in matters of such recognition. Where statute requires a grant of recognition as a condition precedent then it normally stipulates the conditions for such grant either an institution fulfils those requirements or it does not fulfil those requirements. If it fulfils those requirements then there is no reason why permanent recognition is not granted at the very first instance. If the institution does not fulfil the requirement, there is no reason for grant of a provisional recognition or recognition limited in time. An institution not fulfilling the requirement cannot be granted any recognition whatsoever. If it fulfils those requirements then there is no reason why permanent recognition is not granted at the very first instance. If the institution does not fulfil the requirement, there is no reason for grant of a provisional recognition or recognition limited in time. An institution not fulfilling the requirement cannot be granted any recognition whatsoever. The result would be that either a recognition is granted on permanent basis or is not granted at all. There cannot be middle path in such a matter for the simple reason that if an institution is not fulfilling the requirement then it cannot be permitted to carry on teaching because the students of those batches would be passing without statutory requirement being met. This unhealthy practice of granting limited recognition or provisional recognition gives rise to unethical and unhealthy practice which cannot be countenanced in any civilised democracy. 8. With the aforesaid directions, this writ application is allowed.