Judgment , J. 1. This petition seek quashing of Clause 7 of the prospectus for Common Entrance test for admissions to B.Ed. Course and for a direction to either conduct admissions or to permit admissions being made by the petitioner- college. 2. Case of the petitioner is that it was set up in the year 2006-07 and has been granted recognition by The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), respondent No. 2. It has also been granted affiliation by the Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak-respondent No. 1. Recognition was granted vide letter dated 13.10.2007, Annexure P-2. However, as per schedule for admissions, last date for admissions was 30.9.2007 and on that account, the petitioner-college was not included in the counselling for admissions. Clause 7 of the prospectus, as quoted in para 3 of the petition, is as under "7. No counselling shall be held and no admissions shall be made after 30.9.2007, these shall not be allowed to be filled after this date. Also, if any new College of Education is granted recognition by NCTE in the State of Haryana, after 30.9.2007, the same shall be considered for affiliation and admission in the next academic session i.e. 2008-09." We have already considered the issue raised in the present petition vide judgment dated 15.10.2007 in CWP No. 16124 of 2007 (Seth Tek Chand v. State of Haryana and others), Annexure P.8. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that challenge to Clause 7 of the prospectus was not considered while dealing with the matter earlier in Seth Tek Chand (supra). 4. We are unable to accept the submission made. To regulate admissions, a cut off date has to be fixed and unless the same is arbitrary, the same cannot be held to be illegal. Mere grant of recognition cannot control the said cut off date. There has to be a terminus quo for admissions so that the students who are admitted can complete their studies. There is nothing to show that the NCTE grants recognition only during a particular period which can coincide with admissions. They may, thus, always be some institutions who may get recongnition after admissions are closed. There is nothing wrong with the cut off date fixed in the present case. In fact, it is desirable that reasonable cut off date is fixed for admissions so that admissions do not go on in the mid-session. They may, thus, always be some institutions who may get recongnition after admissions are closed. There is nothing wrong with the cut off date fixed in the present case. In fact, it is desirable that reasonable cut off date is fixed for admissions so that admissions do not go on in the mid-session. The judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh and another, AIR 2002 SC 3230 : [2002(6) SLR 180 (SC] and Mridul Dhar (minor) and another v. Union of India and others, (2005)2 SCC 65 : [2005(2) SLR 18 (SC], have been referred to in the earlier judgment of this Court in Seth Tek Chand (supra). We may also refer to the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in Ramrao v. AIBC Bank Employees Welfare Association, AIR 2004 SC 1459 : [2004(3) SLR 338 (SC], wherein it was observed :- "31. It is not in dispute that a cut off date can be provided in terms of the provisions of the statute or executive order. In University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary and Ors. [(1996)10 SCC 536]. It has been observed : "21...... It is settled law that the choice of a date as a basis ;or classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances. When it is seen that a line or a point there must be and there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of the legislature or its delegate must be accepted unless it can be said that it is very wide off the reasonable mark. (See Union of India v. Parameswaran Match Works (1975)1 SCC 305 : (1975)2 SCR 573 at P. 579 and Sushma Sharma (Dr.) v. State of Rajasthan (1985 Supp SCC 45 : 1985 SCC (L and S) 565 : (1985)3 SCR 243) at P. 269). 32. If a cut off date can be fixed, indisputably those who fall within the purview thereof would form a separate class. Such a classification has a reasonable nexus with the object which the decision of the Bank to promote its employee seeks to achieve. 32. If a cut off date can be fixed, indisputably those who fall within the purview thereof would form a separate class. Such a classification has a reasonable nexus with the object which the decision of the Bank to promote its employee seeks to achieve. Such classifications would neither fall within the category of creating a class within a class or an artificial classification so as to offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 33. Wherever such a cut off date is fixed, a question may arise as to why a person would suffer only because he comes within the wrong side of the cut off date, but the fact that some persons or a Section of Society would face hardship, by itself cannot be a ground for holding that the cut off date so fixed is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution." Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in the previous academic session, admissions were made upto 15.12.2006 and that admissions are still going on in the States of Punjab and UT. 5 This contention does not have any merit. 6. It is necessary to refer to order of this Court dated 7.8.2007 in CWP No. 9270 of 2007, referring to the background in the State of Haryana. Contention was raised on behalf of the State that examinations were scheduled to be held in March 2008 and admissions could not be allowed after May 2007. In that case, educational institutions had been given recognition immediately after March 2007 and the said institutions were not included in the counselling held in May 2007. It was observed that the State must fix a schedule laying down duration of the course, date of commencement of course and last date for admissions. Thereafter, it appears that schedule for admissions was laid down by the State of Haryana and 30.9.2007 was fixed to be the last date for admissions so that course could be completed. 7. In view of above, we do not find any ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. The petition is dismissed.