Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 17.8.2007, Annexure P.20 passed by the Punjabi University, Patiala, cancelling affiliation granted to the petitioner. Further consequential relief has also been sought. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an educational institution, granted recognition by the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) under the provisions of National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (in short, NCTE Act) after due inspection with reference to parameters laid down under the Act. Recognition was granted vide letter dated 25.7.2006, Annexure P. 2 under section 14 of the Act, for starting B.Ed. course of 2006-07 with an annual intake of 100 students. However, certain observations were made in the order of recognition which was a conditional one, namely that duly selected staff with requisite qualification will be appointed before the commencement of the academic session within 21 days from the date of issue of the order. The staff will be selected by a duly constituted selection committee. This was followed by letter dated 31.7.2006, Annexure P. 3 granting temporary affiliation by the Punjabi University, Patiala. As per norms under the National Council for Teachers Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2005 (in short, `the Regulations), the College is required to have 2500 square meters of land with 1500 square meters of built area. The petitioner already had 5 acres of land with built area of 2600 square yards. The NCTE had given extension upto the session 2009-10 under the regulations and allowed non-NET/SLET qualified lecturers till then. The Principal is allowed to be appointed on contract basis out of Professors/Readers. On 28.7.2006, Selection Committee constituted by the University appointed five NET qualified lecturers but no other eligible lecturer being available, the petitioner appointed 4 lecturers on ad hoc basis who were not NET qualified, which was permissible upto the year 2009-10. Advertisement dated 17.9.2006 was issued for inviting applications for the posts of Principal and lecturers. Since the University nominee did not come, interview could not be held on 13.11.2006. The petitioner appointed four regular lecturers and four ad hoc lecturers. Another advertisement dated 5.12.2006 was issued but no response was received from the University. Advertisement dated 17.9.2006 was issued for inviting applications for the posts of Principal and lecturers. Since the University nominee did not come, interview could not be held on 13.11.2006. The petitioner appointed four regular lecturers and four ad hoc lecturers. Another advertisement dated 5.12.2006 was issued but no response was received from the University. The College was not under an obligation to associate a nominee of the University for selection of its staff in view of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 355 : [2002(6) SLR 627 (SC)], Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 2003 SC 3724 and PA Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 3226. 3. The petitioner-Institution was included in the counselling conducted for admission to the B.Ed. course for the session 2006-07 and 100 students were allotted to the college who completed the course and out of 100 students, 98 appeared and all passed. 97 were placed in first division. 4. For the session 2007-08, the petitioner applied to the University for affiliation and though, the petitioner-college was included in the prospectus for conducting Joint Entrance Test for 2007-08, vide letter dated 13.6.2007, Annexure P.9, fine of Rs. 8 laes was imposed on the petitioner-college for deficiencies for not having regular Principal, regular teachers and website which was illegal. Action for violation of provisions of the Act could be taken only by the NCTE under section 17 of the Act. 5. The petitioner-college pointed out that deficiencies pointed were non- existent. The website was functional since 28.4.2006 and was accessible on the internet. Time for appointment of regular principal and regular lecturers had been extended by the NCTE itself. Five regular lecturers and four ad hoc lecturers had already been appointed. Some of the lecturers had left the college and the posts were re-advertised. The College had achieved 100% results. Even colleges which had not paid the fine were inchided in the counselling. The petitioner tried to deposit 50% of the fine and a banker cheque was got issued but the University did not accept the same. In the list of colleges, displayed on the intemet on 31.7.2007, name of the petitioner- college was not included. Even colleges which had not paid the fine were inchided in the counselling. The petitioner tried to deposit 50% of the fine and a banker cheque was got issued but the University did not accept the same. In the list of colleges, displayed on the intemet on 31.7.2007, name of the petitioner- college was not included. Show cause notice dated 16.7.2007 Annexure P. 16 was issued to the petitioner, which was replied to on 24.7.2007 vide Annexure P. 17 but since no action was taken, writ petition was filed in this Court on 2.8.2007 and thereafter, further order dated 17.8.2007 cancelling affiliation of the petitioner was passed. The petitioner amended the writ petition to challenge the said order. 6. Main contention on behalf of the petitioner was that under the NCTE Act, under sections 13, 14 and 17, affiliation had to follow recognition and action for violation of any condition should be taken only by the NCTE. The University as an examining body was only concerned with conduct and standards of examinations. Parameters of infrastructure were within the purview of the NCTE alone, irrespective of the provisions in the University Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the objections in the Show Cause Notice and the stand of the petitioner in reply thereto. The objections of the University in Show Cause Notice, Annexure P. 16 are : "1. The documents related to land which were presented to the University by Mata Rameshwari Devi Memorial Trust, which is running this College, have been found to be duplicate. FIR is containing the report of the Inquiry Officer. 2. College is not having a principal appointed by the selection Committee of the University; 3. College is not having any teacher appointed as per Rules. 4. College is not having sufficient building as per norms. 5. Infrastructure, is lacking laboratories and testing instruments. 6. College is not having a canteen. 7. School is running in the college campus only, which is against the conditions mentioned in the affiliation letter of the university." In the reply, the explanation given to the objections is : "I. THAT THE PAPERS SUBMITTED BY THE MATA RAMESHWARI DEVI MEMORIAL TRUST WITH REGARD TO THE LEASE OF THE COLLEGE LAND EXECUTED IN THEIR FAVOUR ARE FAKE. 7. School is running in the college campus only, which is against the conditions mentioned in the affiliation letter of the university." In the reply, the explanation given to the objections is : "I. THAT THE PAPERS SUBMITTED BY THE MATA RAMESHWARI DEVI MEMORIAL TRUST WITH REGARD TO THE LEASE OF THE COLLEGE LAND EXECUTED IN THEIR FAVOUR ARE FAKE. Sir, the Charge that the papers submitted by us to the University regarding the lease of the land is clearly false and baseless. In fact, your own University has already obtained the legal opinion with regard to the land of the college before granting us affiliation. A copy of the legal opinion obtained by the college as regard to the grant of the affiliation is attached herewith as Annexure A-7. Further still, by merely relying upon a false and motivated FIR it is wrong to suggest that the lease deed executed in favour of the Trust is a fake one especially, when even in the FIR it has not been stated that the signature thereon are either forged or fabricated. In fact, seeing the fact that prima facie no case is made out from the FIR mentioned by you, the Honble High Court has already granted anticipatory bails to all the members of the Mata Rameshwari Devi Memorial Trust. Thus, it is evident that there is no truth in the allegation that the lease deeds executed in favour of the Mata Rameshwari Devi Memorial Trust are fake especially when the same neither been proved in any Court of law. Therefore, the first allegation levelled against is in the Show Cause Notice, under reference, is without any truth and entirely baseless. II. THAT THE COLLEGE HAS NOT APPOINTED A PRINCIPAL WHO HAS BEEN SELECTED BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE OF THE UNIVERSITY. Sir, The allegation that we have violated the norms with regard to the appointment of Principal is again false and frivolous. In accordance with the guidelines issued by you, a duly constituted Selection Committee had been formed for the appointment of a Principal for the college, this Committee had held its meeting on 28th of July, 2006, and no eligible candidate was found. A copy of the proceedings of the Selection Committee meeting held on 28th of July, 2006 is attached herewith as Annexure A-8. A copy of the proceedings of the Selection Committee meeting held on 28th of July, 2006 is attached herewith as Annexure A-8. That, thereafter, fresh advertisements for appointing a Principal were again issued in the Indian Express and The Tribune on 27.9.2006 and thereafter, with your consent, interviews for aspiring candidates had been fixed on 13.11.2006. However, on the said date, no University expert of V.C. Nominee had come present and therefore, no Principal could be selected in accordance with the Rules. Further still, once again on 5.12.2006, applications were again invited for appointment to the Post of Principal and vide our letter dated 20.12.2006, you were asked to fix a date for the interview and send the V.C. Nominee for the selection of a Principal. However, once again, no response was received from your side. Resultantly, we were left with no option but to appoint our senior most lecturer as the Officiating Principal. A copy of the advertisements issued inviting applications for the post of Principal are collectively attached herewith as Annexure A-9 and the letters written by us to the University for sending of the University expert and V.C. Nominee are collectively attached herewith as Annexure A-10. Thus, from a perusal of the above, it is clear that no fault can be attributed to us for the non- appointment of a Principal who has been duly selected by a Selection Committee constituted by the University, especially, when we have taken all the necessary steps required from us in this regard. III. THAT THE COLLEGE DOES NOT HAVE LECTURERS WHO HAVE BEEN APPOINTED AS PER NORMS. Sir, the allegations that the Nancy College of Education does not have lecturers who have been appointed as per norms is again false and contrary to the true facts. In fact, a duly constituted Selection. Committee of the University has itself selected lecturers for appointment to our College. A copy of the proceedings of the University Selection Committee meeting held on 28.7.2006, whereby lecturers were selected for appointment to our college is collectively attached herewith as Annexure A-11. Further still, in order to ensure that more than adequate number of teaching staff is available for imparting education to our students, we have also appointed a number of ad hoc lecturers, list of which is attached herewith as Annexure A- 12. Further still, in order to ensure that more than adequate number of teaching staff is available for imparting education to our students, we have also appointed a number of ad hoc lecturers, list of which is attached herewith as Annexure A- 12. It is pertinent to mention here that this list had already earlier been supplied to the University. Additionally, we have also taken steps for appointments of other regular lecturers by issuing advertisements in the newspapers, copies of which are collectively attached herewith as Annexure A- 13. Thus, from a perusal of the above, it is clear that adequate number of staff is available with our college and the lecturers appointed by the college have been recruited without following any norms is clearly baseless. This is especially so since we have continuously requesting the University to send its nominees for participating in the Selection process for the recruitment of the lecturers and we cannot now be penalized for the non-action on the part of the University in sending its Nominee. IV. THAT THE BUILDING OF THE COLLEGE IS NOT AS PER NORMS. Sir, the allegation that the building of the Nancy College of Education is not as per norms is clearly contrary to the true facts. The inspection of our building infrastructure have already been carried out by the officials of your University and the officials of the National Council of Teachers Education. In all these inspections, the college building has been found to be as per the prescribed norms and no short coming in this regard has ever been found or intimated to the college. In this regard, reference may also be made to our preliminary submission. Further still, a copy of the building plan of our college showing the necessary infrastructure developed by the college is also attached for your perusal as Annexure A-14. In addition, the copies of the various photographs showing the building of the college are also attached as Annexure A-15. It is pertinent to mention here that our college building not only fulfills the various norms laid down by the University and National Council for Teachers Education but in fact, exceeds them and you are welcome to send an inspection team for inspection the same at any time. Thus, it is clear that the allegation that the building is not as per norms is clearly contrary to the true facts. Thus, it is clear that the allegation that the building is not as per norms is clearly contrary to the true facts. V. THAT THERE IS LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH INCLUDES LABORATORIES AND TEST EQUIPMENTS. Sir, this allegation levelled against our college is once again false and baseless in addition to also being vague. As stated above, before granting us affiliation due inspection of our infrastructural facilities was carried out by your University and it is only after the verification of the existing infrastructure that affiliation has been granted by us. Further still, officials of National Council for Teacher Education have also inspected our infrastructural facilities and after being satisfied with the same, we have been granted recognition by the NCTE. A copy of the C.D. of the inspection carried out by the officials of the NCTE is attached herewith as Annexure A-16. Further, still, in support of our averments, we are also enclosing herewith the copies of the various Bills for the purchase of laboratory equipment etc. which are attached herewith as Annexure A-17 and the photographs of the laboratories and other facilities are collectively attached as Annexure A-18. Thus, it is clear that the University has been misinformed with regard to the infrastructural facilities available with the college and the charge levelled against us is contrary to the true facts. VI. THAT THE COLLEGE DOES NOT HAVE A CANTEEN. Sir, we are surprised to observe that despite having a well furnished working Canteen, this allegation has been levelled against us. As is clear from the building plan, Annexure A-14, adequate provisions have been made for a Canteen while construction of our college. In any case, we are also enclosing the photographs of the Canteen which are attached herewith as Annexure A-19. Thus, it is clear from the perusal of the above that our College is indeed having a Canteen and false and baseless allegations have been levelled against us. VII. THAT THERE IS A SCHOOL RUNNING FROM THE COLLEGE CAMPUS WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE AFFILIATION NORMS OF THE UNIVERSITY. Sir, it is regretted that you have been misinformed about the running of a school from the college premises. This allegation is again false and far from the truth. The Nancy Public School, which is also run by the Mata Rameshwari Devi Memorial Trust is running from its own building. Sir, it is regretted that you have been misinformed about the running of a school from the college premises. This allegation is again false and far from the truth. The Nancy Public School, which is also run by the Mata Rameshwari Devi Memorial Trust is running from its own building. The same is not run from the college premises and therefore; it cannot be said that any of the affiliation norms of the University are being flouted in this regard. A copy of the certificate issued by the Principal of the Nancy Public School certifying the fact that the school is running from its own building is attached herewith as Annexure A-20." 8. Stand of the University is that conditional recognition was subject to the condition of compliance with the norms and as per norms, appointments were not made. The University was entitled to oversee the compliance of deficiencies with reference to norms laid down in the University Act as well as NCTE Act as per statutory provisions in the University Act. Inspections were carried out and as per inspection report, the college was found not to be complying with the norms. Accordingly, decision for cancellation of affiliation was taken. 9. The NCTE was added as a party after filing of the petition. It has entered appearance through counsel and though no reply has been filed, learned counsel for NCTE stated that the petitioner college fulfilled all the norms and the NCTE was satisfied that the petitioner was entitled to continue with the recognition. It was submitted that the University was bound to grant affiliation. The NCTE supported the stand of the petitioner. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 10. The question for consideration is whether and to what extent the University has a role in examining the availability of infrastructure of a Teachers Training College and where there is a conflict in the opinion formed, whether the University can withdraw affiliation rendering recognition granted by the NCTE to be redundant. 11. 10. The question for consideration is whether and to what extent the University has a role in examining the availability of infrastructure of a Teachers Training College and where there is a conflict in the opinion formed, whether the University can withdraw affiliation rendering recognition granted by the NCTE to be redundant. 11. The issue has been gone into by the Honble Supreme Court, inter alia, in State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and ors., 2006(9) SCC 1, Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram and another, 2000(5) SCC 231 and by this Court in CWP No. 9270 of 2007 (Lord Krishna Jan Kalyan AVM Siksha Samiti v. State of Haryana and others) decided on 7.8.2007. Relevant observations are : "Reference, has been made to judgment of this Court (Mange Ram Educational and Charitable Trust (Regd.) v. State of Haryana and another) 2007(4) SLR 145, wherein following the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and ors., 2006(9) SCC 1, it was held that recognition having been granted, grant of affiliation by the affiliating body was mandatory and no approval of the State Government was required, as held by the Honble Supreme Court in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram and another 2000(5) SCC 231. In view of law settled by the Honble Supreme Court in Sant Dnyaneshwar (supra), following which a Division Bench of this Court rendered its judgment in Mange Ram (supra), we are of the view that the issue is concluded in favour of the petitioners and it has to be held that grant of affiliation automatically follows on grant of recognition by the NCTE. Reference may be made to observations of the Honble Supreme Court in Sant Dnyaneshwar (supra) : "80... As per the scheme of the Act, once recognition has been granted by NCTE under Section 14(6) of the Act, every university ("examining body") is obliged to grant affiliation to such institution and Sections 82 and 83 of the University Act do not apply to such cases." 12. As per the scheme of the Act, once recognition has been granted by NCTE under Section 14(6) of the Act, every university ("examining body") is obliged to grant affiliation to such institution and Sections 82 and 83 of the University Act do not apply to such cases." 12. In Sant Dnyaneshwar (supra), the question involved was whether in case of conflict, of any State legislation with a Central legislation, referable to Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution read with Entry 25 of List III of the said Schedule, the Central legislation will prevail. It was held that Central legislation on the subject will prevail. Relevant observations are as under : "62. From the above decisions, in our judgment, the law appears to be very well settled. So far as coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research, scientific and technical institutions are concerned, the subject is exclusively covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII to the Constitution and the State has no power to encroach upon the legislative power of Parliament. It is only when the subject is covered by Entry 25 of List III of Schedule VII to the Constitution that there is a concurrent power of Parliament as well as the State Legislatures and appropriate Act can be made by the State Legislature subject to limitations and restrictions under the Constitution. 63. In the instant case, admittedly, Parliament has enacted the 1993 Act, which is in force. The preamble of the Act provides for establishment of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) with a view to achieving planned and coordinate development of the teacher-education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher-education system and for matters connected therewith. With a view to achieving that object, the National Council for Teacher Education has been established at four places by the Central Government. It is thus clear that the field is fully and completely occupied by an Act of Parliament and covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII. It is, therefore, not open to the State Legislature to encroach upon the said field. Parliament alone could have exercised the power by making appropriate law. It is thus clear that the field is fully and completely occupied by an Act of Parliament and covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII. It is, therefore, not open to the State Legislature to encroach upon the said field. Parliament alone could have exercised the power by making appropriate law. In the circumstances, it is not open to the State Government to refuse permission relying on a State Act or on "policy consideration." 13. The scheme of the NCTE Act as analysed in the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court is that the said Act having been enacted with reference to Entry 66 of List I of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, any State Act, including University Act will not override the statutory provisions of a Central Act. Since under the scheme of the Central Act, the NCTE has been given statutory power of conducting inspection with reference to availability of infrastructure and to determine whether an educational institution was entitled to recognition, any contrary view of any authority under the State Act cannot override the power of the NCTE and recognition so granted cannot be rendered redundant. The clear stand has been taken by the NCTE that the petitioner college fulfilled all the norms for recognition. In such circumstances, affiliation had to follow as a matter of course and cancellation of affiliation so long as recognition was operative, was not permissible. The authority of the examining body is to assess the students in examination and to conduct examination and to that extent University may have total autonomy in accordance with law but the University could not encroach upon the power of NCTE on the issue of grant and continuance of recognition. By cancelling affiliation, recognition could not be rendered redundant. 14. In view of stand taken by the NCTE, we need not go into the question whether the University was justified in holding that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite parameters. However, the University will be at liberty to send its report for consideration by the NCTE. 15. In view of the above legal position, cancellation of affiliation by the University is not justified. Accordingly, we allow the petition and quash the order of cancellation of affiliation. The petitioner college will, thus, be considered to be eligible for admissions in accordance with law.