Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of memo dated 23.10.2006, Annexure P. 1 and Show Cause Notice dated 18.6.2007, Annexure P.8. 2. Case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 2-College was imparting education and inter-alia is running the courses of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) and Law. Respondent No. 1 University pointed out certain deficiencies to the petitioners vide memo dated 23.10.2006, Annexure P.1. Thereafter, Show Cause notice dated 18.6.2007, Annexure P.8 was issued to the petitioners requiring them to show cause why affiliation granted be not withdrawn. 3. According to the petitioners, the deficiencies had been removed and it was after due inspection that recognition was granted by the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE). The Director of Public Instructions (Colleges) also permitted the petitioners inclusion in counselling for the year 2007-08 for B.Ed. admissions vide letter dated 14.9.2007, Annexure P. 18. 4. It was submitted that the State having given No Objection the University was not entitled to proceed with cancellation of affiliation of the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon judgment of this Court dated 17.9.2007 in CWP No. 11751 of 2007 (Nancy College of Education and another v. The Punjabi University, Patiala and others), wherein identical issue was involved and after considering the scheme of the statute and the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and ors., 2006(9) SCC 1, it was observed : "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 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. 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. 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." 6. Learned counsel for the NCTE submitted that the petitioners fulfilled all the norms. 7. Learned counsel for the University has not been able to distinguish the applicability of judgment of this Court in Nancy College of Education (supra). 8. Accordingly, we allow this petition and quash the impugned Show Cause Notice for disaffiliation and declare the petitioner College to be eligible for admissions in accordance with law.