Judgment :- Prabha Sridevan, J. The State has filed W.A. Nos.137 and 220 of 2008 aggrieved by the order passed in W.P. No.20569 of 2007 etc. batch; the Director of Teacher Education has filed W.A. No.278 of 2008 against the order passed in W.P. No.25164 of 2007; and the Self-Financing Private Teacher Training Institutes Association has filed W.A. No.361 of 2008 against the order passed in W.P. No.25998 of 2007. A brief factual background of the case is necessary. 2. By G.O. 2(D) No.59, School Education Department dated 11. 2006, the Government directed the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, the second respondent herein, that 30.11.2006 shall be the last date for admission to the Diploma Course in Teacher Education (D.T.E.) for the academic year 2006-2007 and that no private Teacher Training Institutes shall admit students for the D.T.E. Course beyond 30.11.2006 for the said year and even if the seats are unfilled, that cannot be a ground for making any admissions and there will be no admissions after the cut-off date even if the seats are unfilled. It was made clear that any deviation in the said direction may result in appropriate steps being taken against the erring institutes. It was also directing that 20.11.2006 shall be the last date for approval of teaching faculty. 3. By G.O. 2(D) No.7 dated 2. 2007, School Education Department, the above Government Order was slightly modified, since the Associations of Private Teacher Training Institutes (TTIs for short) had represented that the last date for approval of teaching faculty may be extended because of shortage of required qualified staff and the second respondent herein, had also stated that some TTIs had obtained orders from this Court for re-consideration of the proposals sent by them. Therefore, the Government, by this Government Order, extended the last date for approval of the teaching faculty to 3. 2007. A batch of writ petitions was filed in W.P. No.47503 of 2006 etc. (referred to as the first batch of cases) challenging G.O. 2(D) No.59 referred to above. These writ petitions were disposed of by order dated 4. 2007, where the learned single Judge (V. Ramasubramanian, J.) had taken note of the subsequent G.O. 2(D) No.7. 4. Before the learned single Judge, it was contended that when the last date for approval of faculty members is extended to 3. These writ petitions were disposed of by order dated 4. 2007, where the learned single Judge (V. Ramasubramanian, J.) had taken note of the subsequent G.O. 2(D) No.7. 4. Before the learned single Judge, it was contended that when the last date for approval of faculty members is extended to 3. 2007, then the last date for admission of students should also be appropriately extended and there should be an interval of at least ten days between the last date for approval of faculty members and the last date for admission of students. The learned single Judge held that if there is such extension, it would eventually destroy the concept of academic year and when the NCTE Regulations provide that students of diploma should undergo internship, then if the academic year of TTIs does not coincide or at least closely follow the academic year, then the prescription of internship will turn out to be a farce. Therefore, the learned single Judge upheld the prescription of 30.11.2006 as the last date for admission of students. The learned Judge, while disposing of the writ petitions, gave certain directions. They are as follows : (a) The impugned Government Order in G.O. 59 was upheld; (b) As regards G.O.7, it was held that this concession is only in respect of the current academic year 2006-2007, since the Amended Regulations, 2005 were notified on 11. 2006 and the revised Appendix-2 Norms and Standards under Amended Regulations 2006 were notified only on 112. 2006 and the revised Appendix-2 Norms and Standards under Amended Regulations 2006 were notified only on 112. 2006; (c) The Government was directed to issue a compendium of guidelines indicating, inter alia, the date of commencement of the course, the cut-off date for approval of staff members and the cut-off date for admission of students etc.; (d) The Government was further directed to make it clear as to the question of grant of affiliation or approval of admission of students and appointment of faculty members will be considered for every academic year and that the institutes which receive orders of recognition beyond the cut-off date would be entitled to have affiliation and approval of affiliation of students and appointment of staff members only for the following academic year; (e) Since the NCTE had now modified the format of the orders of recognition and the academic year is not mentioned in the orders of recognition, the institutes will have a right from the academic year 2007-2008 onwards to admit students only after the grant of approval of staff members and the grant of affiliation by the State Government, in view of Regulation No.7(11), 7(12) and 8(10) of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005. (f) The Government was also directed to publish the compendium of guidelines in the Government Gazette to avoid further complications. 5. In compliance of this order, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.108 on 15. 2007 and the following directions were given : "1. Permission is accorded for filling up the seats under Government quota through counselling under Single Window System, at four places in Chennai. 2. The period from July to June should be treated as academic year of each year for the Diploma in Teacher Training. 3. The calendar of activities and the guidelines to be followed as indicated in the Annexure should be implemented from the academic year 2007-2008. Unless specific changes are required, these guidelines should continue to be followed in the coming academic year also. 4. It is further ordered that the admission of students to the Diploma in Physical Education for the academic year 2007-2008 may be adopted by following the calendar of activities followed for admission of candidates to the Diploma in Teacher Education Course and the expenditure for this may be met from the funds allotted for selection for DTE under Single Window System. 5. 5. This order should be published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette extraordinary on 15. 2007." The Annexure to the said G.O. deals with educational qualification, subject-wise allotment, rule of reservation, special reservation, age limit, calendar of activities etc. This G.O. came to in for attack in a batch of cases in W.P. Nos.20569 of 2007 etc. (referred to as the second batch of cases), which was disposed of by the learned single Judge (P. Jyothimani, J.) on 11. 2008 by the order which is impugned herein. The learned single Judge, by a detailed order, allowed in part the writ petitions with the following directions : "(i) G.O.Ms.No.108 School Education (U1) Department dated 17.05.2007 in so far as it imposes reservation of admission based on subjectwise in relation to Non-minority Self Financing Private Teacher Training institutes imparting Diploma in Teacher Training is set aside; (ii) The portion of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.108 School Education (U1) Department dated 17.05.2007 relating to communal reservation in so far as it relates to Non-minority Self Financing Private Teacher Training institutes is set aside, however, with an observation that it is open to the Private Management to accept to follow the Governments reservation policy voluntarily, in which event, this portion of the judgement shall not stand in their way; (iii) The respondents being "examining body" under the NCTE Act are authorities entitled to approve the teachers list on the hormonius construction of Section 14(4), 14 (6) and 16 of the NCTE Act, however, not imposing conditions more than the NCTE Act and Regulations made thereunder and can suo motu on sufficient reasons or on specific complaint verify the correctness of the particulars with specific reference to the qualifications of the teachers furnished by the Institutes while obtaining recognition from the NCTE. In cases of discrepancy regarding qualification, it is open to the 2nd respondent to inform the same to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE in respect of the concerned teacher and shall grant approval regarding the other teachers, who confirm to the requirements of the NCTE; (iv) The calendar of activity found in the impugned Government Order, as modified by the Government in the terms stated above, shall be made applicable and shall be scrupulously followed by all parties concerned from the academic year 2008-2009; (v) The State Government and the authorities empowered by the State are empowered to approve the list of teachers, conduct examinations and prescribe syllabus for the students of Diploma in Teacher Education, in consonance with Sections 14(4) and 14(6) of the NCTE Act; (vi) Based on the NCTE Regulations, for the academic year 2006-2007, the list of teachers sent by the private institutes shall be considered and approved by the second respondent, viz., Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order; (vii) The second respondent, viz., Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai shall fix the date for First Year D.T.Ed., examination for the students admitted in the year 2006-2007 in January, 2008, after calculating the number of working days by taking into consideration the last date of admission of students for academic year 2006-2007 as per the Government Order; (viii) For the academic year 2007-2008, the admission process including the approval of teachers shall be completed within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that Institutes which have not forwarded the list of new teachers approved by the NCTE etc. shall submit the list forthwith to the second respondent and the second respondent shall approve the list based on the NCTE regulations within the time stipulated above; (ix) The second respondent shall fix the date of Examination for First Year D.T.Ed. shall submit the list forthwith to the second respondent and the second respondent shall approve the list based on the NCTE regulations within the time stipulated above; (ix) The second respondent shall fix the date of Examination for First Year D.T.Ed. Course, 2007-2008 batch by calculating number of working days from first week of January2008 and fix the date of examination in July or August,2008; and (x) The Government as well as Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training shall issue fresh calendar of activities for the academic year 2008-2009 in consultation with the Institutes, the calendar of activities shall be published and intimated to all Institutes by April, 2008 and the same shall be scrupulously followed by all concerned from the academic year 2008-2009 onwards." 6. Heard Mr. N. Kannadasan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State Government, Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy appearing for the N.C.T.E. and Mr. N.R. Chandran, Mr. K.M. Vijayan, Mr. C. Selvaraju and Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, Senior Counsel and the learned counsel for the TTIs. 7. The learned Judge in the second batch of cases had framed the following points for consideration since the impugned Government Order was challenged by the State on three grounds : (i) Subject wise allotment of seats in respect of Unaided institutes by directing 50% of the seats to be allotted to the science students; 25% to be allotted to Arts students and the remaining 25% to be allotted to the vocational stream students is ultra vires; (ii) The communal reservation by directing Self Financing Non-minority Teacher Educational institutes to follow the policy of reservation in the following manner, viz., (a)Scheduled castes : 18% (b)Scheduled Tribes : 2% (c)Most Backward Class : 20% (d)Backward Class : 30% and (e)Open category : 31%, is illegal; (iii) The calendar of activity by fixing dates for admission etc., to be followed from 20072008, is not practicable, and therefore, illegal. The institutes, on the other hand, attack the Government Order on the ground that the calendar of activities is unworkable, that the learned single Judge was not correct in accepting that the State had the power to approve or reject the staff list, and that the Government Order was States transgression into N.C.T.E.s jurisdiction. 8. Communal Reservation : The learned Additional Advocate General made his submissions to sustain the communal reservation. 8. Communal Reservation : The learned Additional Advocate General made his submissions to sustain the communal reservation. However, we will not interfere with the impugned order which left it open to the institutes to follow the principle of reservation in view of the judgment in P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 S.C.C. 537 . That portion of the order reads as follows: "Out of the three grounds raised by the petitioners, in respect of the challenge on the basis of communal reservation, in a batch of writ petitions, viz., W.P.No.37233 of 2006 etc., batch, wherein G.O.Ms.(1D)No.226 School Education (U1) Department dated 28.08.2006, in which the policy of reservation of the State Government was directed to be followed in respect of admission of students in Teacher Training Institutions, was challenged and based on the judgment of the Apex Court, especially in P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra ( 2005 (6) SCC 537 ), this Court has held that such reservation is not permissible in respect of admission of students in the private Self Financing Non-minority Institutions. In that case, it was held that in the event of the respective Institutions intending to follow the rule of reservation, there is no bar. In this case also as fairly submitted by the learned senior counsel Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, it is left open to the petitioner Institutions to follow the said principle of reservation. In view of the same, no separate order is necessary as far as this issue is concerned and the order passed in the above batch of cases shall be binding. We will not interfere with this.” 9. The State has otherwise focussed its attack only on that part of Clause (iii) of the directions extracted above which provides for piecemeal approval of the staff list and Clause (iv) which makes it mandatory for all the parties to follow the calendar of activities only from the academic year 2008-2009 and also Clauses (vi) and (vii). 10. States power to approve the Staff List and lay down the Calendar of Activities : The role of the affiliating body for deciding as to which is the viable academic year was the subject matter of a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in W.P. No.2804 of 2007 [Rukmani College of Education vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others] dated 10. 2007 and it was categorically held therein that only the affiliating body like the University has to specify the academic year which is viable. Section 16 of the NCTE Act provides that the University or affiliating authority will affiliate an institute for the academic year which is viable. It is not in dispute that the State is the examining body and it is the State which issues the diplomas. The learned single Judge had followed the above Full Bench decision and accepted the State Governments role as the examining body, and that even in the absence of guidelines, the State Government has to grant affiliation as per Section 14(6) of the N.C.T.E. Act, and that it cannot be said that "the State Government or respondents 1 and 2 have nothing to act at all" and that the State or the D.T.E.R.T. is having not only a statutory right, but a duty to verify the correctness of the particulars furnished by the TTIs. The learned single Judge had rightly held that the TTIs cannot say that the State has no right to withhold approval; and that it is difficult to sustain the TTIs contention that even if the teachers qualification is not in accordance with the norms, the State should grant approval. We are in entire agreement with the learned single Judge and we decline to interfere in favour of the TTIs. It is vain to contend that the State will not stand in the same position as a University, which is an affiliating body. It appears that the Full Bench decision has been appealed against before the Supreme Court and directions for accepting the application forms from the students have been given pending notice to the respondents. This is not enough for us to hold that the Supreme Court had stayed the Full Bench decision. 11. Before P. Jyothimani, J. in the present batch, it was contended that while the University has its own guidelines for granting affiliation, the State Government has not framed any rules or scheme and therefore, the State has no parameters to decide the issue of approval. 12. 11. Before P. Jyothimani, J. in the present batch, it was contended that while the University has its own guidelines for granting affiliation, the State Government has not framed any rules or scheme and therefore, the State has no parameters to decide the issue of approval. 12. The norms laid down under the NCTE Regulations lay down the qualifications of a Principal and Lecturers and therefore, the State, which is the affiliating body and which admittedly has not formed a scheme or rules to guide the question of affiliation, shall follow the NCTE norms while approving the staff list. In fact, the learned single Judge in these cases has also held that the powers of the State Govenrment to verify the particulars furnished by the institutes to the NCTE as to their correctness cannot be said to be a transgression into the powers of the Central authorities, especially by virtue of Sections 14(4) and 14(6) of the NCTE Act. The learned single Judge also held, "On a reading of the provisions of the NCTE Act, it is evident that the State Government is empowered to approve the list of teachers and being the examining body, it is entitled to prescribe the calendar for every academic year in respect of the number of term days of the students, conducting of examinations, etc. and such directives are only regulatory in nature, in fact for better implementation of the basic policy enunciated by the NCTE through the Government of India under Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution of India." The impugned Government Order has been issued only to implement the order passed in the first batch of cases. That order has not been assailed and has become final. In fact, we see that the impugned order has upheld the right of superintendence of respondents 1 and 2 over the TTIs in order to ensure that the NCTE Regulations are followed and the learned Judge also accepts that the calendar of activities is not in contradiction with the NCTE Regulations and is "in fact, intended for a better implementation of the scheme for maintaining excellencey in the teacher education in a co-ordinated manner". When this is so, there is no justification in interfering with the calendar of activities which has been prescribed pursuant to the order passed in the first batch of writ petitions. When this is so, there is no justification in interfering with the calendar of activities which has been prescribed pursuant to the order passed in the first batch of writ petitions. So, we confirm the finding regarding the States power. 13. Piece-meal approval of Staff List : The NCTE Act provides for the norms and standards for elementary teacher education, leading to diploma in teacher education. It provides for the staff strength, and for a basic unit of 50 students or less with a combined strength of 100 or less for the two year course, there shall be one Principal and five Lecturers. It is not in dispute that the 2002 Regulations have been modified, but however, it is also not in dispute that the NCTE lays down the staff strength. Therefore, when the institutes apply for staff approval, the State Government not only has to take into account whether each teacher whose name is found the list satisfies the qualification prescribed by the NCTE, but also whether the number of teachers proposed in the staff list satisfies the staff strength prescribed by the NCTE and therefore, both these parameters have to be satisfied, viz. staff strength and NCTE qualification. If so, the NCTE cannot approve a list where out of the total number of lecturers required, only three lecturers satisfy the qualification and the others do not. This would be approval of a staff list which is truncated. Therefore, the appellants cannot approve of the staff list piece-meal. The staff list is either approved wholly or it is rejected notwithstanding the fact that some of the names merit acceptance, for the school cannot commence the course without the requisite number of teachers. Therefore, the last sentence in clause (iii) in paragraph 78 of the impugned order which directs the second respondent to grant approval regarding the other teachers is set aside. 14. Whether the Calendar of Activities shall be deferred to 2008-2009 ? Now we will come to the question regarding the calendar of activities and its applicability to the academic year 2007-2008. The impugned order has postponed it by one year and made it applicable only from the academic year 2008-2009 onwards. It was contended on behalf of the TTIs that the academic year pattern was not scrupulously followed after 2004-2005. Now we will come to the question regarding the calendar of activities and its applicability to the academic year 2007-2008. The impugned order has postponed it by one year and made it applicable only from the academic year 2008-2009 onwards. It was contended on behalf of the TTIs that the academic year pattern was not scrupulously followed after 2004-2005. In paragraph 68 of the impugned order, there is a chart giving the particulars of the academic year, the number of TTIs and the date on which the examination was held and we find that from 1999-2000, till the academic year 20032004, the number of TTIs stood at 83 and the examinations were held in time. But in 2004-2005, there is an increase in the number of TTIs from 83 to 305. In 2005-2006, the number is 398 and in 2006-2007, it has become 611, and for these three years, the examinations were held belatedly and it was not possible to maintain the academic year concept. 15. It was vehemently urged on behalf of the TTIs that when the last date for admission is extended upto 13. 2007 as has been done in the instant case, then it will be unrealistic to expect adherence to the calendar of activities. At this juncture, it must be noted that after the judgment in the first batch of cases, where the learned Judge had clearly laid down the guidelines and which order obviously has not been challenged, the State had chosen to issue G.O. 2(D) No.29 dated 16. 2007. By this, the last date for admission of students was extended to 13. 2007 as compared to the original cut-off date of 30.11.2006. It is seen from the G.O. that this is done because private TTIs represented that if the cut-off date for approval of staff list is extended upto 3. 2007, at least one weeks time should be given for admitting students. In fact, in the judgment in the first batch of cases, V. Ramasubramanian, J. has precisely referred to such reactions under pressure, in the following words : "Thus, the role of the State Government has been enlarged in so far as the issue of appointment of staff members is concerned. In fact, in the judgment in the first batch of cases, V. Ramasubramanian, J. has precisely referred to such reactions under pressure, in the following words : "Thus, the role of the State Government has been enlarged in so far as the issue of appointment of staff members is concerned. But unfortunately, without applying their mind to the Amended Regulations of the year 2006, the State Government had buckled under pressure from the institutes, to extend the last date for approval of Faculty Members from 20.11.2006 to 3. 2007 under G.O.(2D) No.7, School Education Department, dated 2. 2007. It is interesting to note that the Government filed common counter-affidavits in one set of cases in this batch, forcefully pleading the validity of G.O. (2D) No.59, School Education Department, dated 111. 2006. In para-17 of the common counter-affidavit, the State Government pleaded that it has "moral and ethical responsibility to ensure quality of education at all levels and that the quality in preparation of Elementary Teachers cannot be compromised to suit the unethical stand taken by Private TTIs to carry out mid-course admissions". Interestingly, these common counter-affidavits were sworn to by the Joint Secretary to Government on 2. 2007. But within two days, G.O.(2D) No.7, School Education Department, dated 2. 2007 was issued, diluting the impugned Government Order and swallowing all the tall claims relating to their "noble intentions" expressed in the counter-affidavits. Therefore, I do not know whether the State has a moral right to accuse the Private TTIs of being "unethical", without getting exposed. If the index finger is stretched out by the State Government against the Private Teacher Training Institutes, for being unethical, the remaining three fingers point at the State Government itself. By the time G.O.(2D) No.7, School Education Department, dated 2. 2007 was issued, the Amended Regulations of the year 2006 had been notified in the Gazette on 112. 2006. Therefore, the State Government ought to have taken note of the same and acted with more caution and circumspection, in the light of the increase in the importance of the role assigned to the State Government under the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2006. Now the damage caused by G.O.(2D) No.7, School Education Department, dated 2. 2006. Therefore, the State Government ought to have taken note of the same and acted with more caution and circumspection, in the light of the increase in the importance of the role assigned to the State Government under the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2006. Now the damage caused by G.O.(2D) No.7, School Education Department, dated 2. 2007, is beyond redemption and hence, it is important that at least the cut off date in respect of admission of students, is not diluted." The learned Judge had obviously anticipated what would happen and this G.O. got issued. 16. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that whatever may be the reasons behind this extension, the Government now stands by the said G.O. and would abide by it. Therefore, though in the first batch of cases the learned Judge had held that extending the last date for admission of students would totally skew the attendance pattern, this has been done and we have to accept that fact situation as it is. 17. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that it was made very clear in the order passed in the first batch of cases that the concession with regard to the extension of date for submission of faculty list was only in respect of the current academic year 2006-2007 and for the following academic year, there would be guidelines prescribing the guideline of activities. The learned senior counsel appearing for the TTIs would however submit that the words "this concession is only in respect of the current academic year" cannot be read in a restricted fashion. We do not agree. When the judgment is read as a whole, it is clear that the learned Judge had held that that the academic year concept must be adhered to and prescription of cut-off dates for admission of students by the Government, which is the affiliating body, is absolutely necessary. 18. We do not agree. When the judgment is read as a whole, it is clear that the learned Judge had held that that the academic year concept must be adhered to and prescription of cut-off dates for admission of students by the Government, which is the affiliating body, is absolutely necessary. 18. It was repeatedly urged on behalf of the TTIs that when examinations have been postponed and held not around July or August, but belatedly in November and December, then insistence on the calendar of activities even for the year 2007-2008 would be unworkable, for then it would mean that the TTIs would have to accommodate simultaneously the first year students who are belatedly writing their examinations in November and the fresh first year students who would have come in or who ought to have come in as per the calendar of activities and similarly with the second year students. The learned senior counsel appearing for the TTIs submitted that virtually then, the TTIs will be bound to impart training to two sets of students with the staff strength that is applicable to one set. It is not in dispute that for the students in the academic year 2006-2007, the examinations were conducted some time in February, 2008 and a calculation chart has been given with regard to the number of working days for the first year students for the academic year 2006-2007, according to which they would complete the required number of working days only by 1. 2008. Therefore, it was submitted that there should be no interference with the order of the learned single Judge passed in the second batch of cases which requires that the calendar of activites should be followed only from the academic year 2008-2009. 19. In response, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that only about 40 institutes or so are facing problems and that is because their staff list had been rejected or returned for compliance, whereas for all the other remaining TTIs, approval has been given and they have commenced the academic year in accordance with the calendar of activities prescribed by the impugned G.O. Ms. No.108 dated 15. 2007. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that if this Court were to accept the case of the TTIs and make the calendar of activities not applicable to 2007-2008, then the consequence will have a domino effect on all the succeeding years. No.108 dated 15. 2007. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that if this Court were to accept the case of the TTIs and make the calendar of activities not applicable to 2007-2008, then the consequence will have a domino effect on all the succeeding years. It was strenuously urged on his behalf that at some point of time, the calendar of activities has to be insisted upon and only then, everything will fall into place and the situation that prevailed from 1999-2000 upto 2004-2005 where examinations were held around June/July and admissions were completed within the stipulated time, can be restored, and that it is in the interest of the students and also the TTIs that restoration of the academic year concept is achieved as early as possible. 20. In this context, we will refer to the following particulars given by the respondents : In addition, districtwise break-up details have also been furnished. About 44,030 students from 664 TTIs have adhered to the calendar of activities. In these circumstances, if we unsettle the calendar for the academic year 2007-2008, then the fate of all these students will be affected and further, 664 TTIs which have conscientiously adhered to the schedule will be prejudiced. As against this, only 61 institutes claim they are aggrieved by the imposition of time schedule. 41 TTIs have not obtained approval of staff list for the academic year 2006-2007 and 20 for the academic year 2007-2008, aggregating to 61. 21. So, we are entirely in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the State. The vehement objections urged on behalf of the challenging TTIs that the calendar of activities is totally unworkable for the academic year 2007-2008 cannot be accepted since obviously more than 600 institutes have in fact adhered to the said calendar and their students are also ready for taking up the examinations for the relevant academic year. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside insofar as it directs that the calendar of activities shall be applicable to the academic year 2008-2009 and G.O. Ms. No.108, School Education (U1) Department dated 17.05.2007, which lays down the guidelines for admission of students from the academic year 2007-2008 is upheld as it is and it shall come into effect from the academic year 2007-2008 as the Government intended it to be. 22. No.108, School Education (U1) Department dated 17.05.2007, which lays down the guidelines for admission of students from the academic year 2007-2008 is upheld as it is and it shall come into effect from the academic year 2007-2008 as the Government intended it to be. 22. A perusal of the impugned order shows that some individual stray cases where there has been some fault, lapse or aberration on the part of the respondents had been highlighted, which had persuaded the learned Judge to hold that the calendar of activities be made applicable from the academic year 2008-2009. When the majority of TTIs have fallen in line with the guidelines issued by the Government, it is clear that the calendar of activities cannot be said to be unworkable. Compliance with the norms and regulations is a must, and the State is bound to insist upon it. "Teacher Training Institutes are meant to teach children of impressionable age and we cannot let loss on the innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not received proper and adequate training" – vide Nageswaramma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1188; and "Ill trained and substandard teachers would be detrimental to our educational system, if not a punishment to our children – vide A.K.E. Society vs. Director of School Education, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 183. 23. For all the foregoing reasons, W.A. Nos.137 and 220 of 2008 filed by the State are allowed because – (a) the order of V. Ramasubramanian, J. in the first batch of cases laying down that there should be a calendar of activities commencing from the academic year 2007-2008 and the directions with regard to the academic year 2006-2007 were only with regard to the particular academic year, in view of the special circumstances has become final; and (b) the order in the first batch of cases issuing a mandate that there should be a calendar of activities has not been attacked. 24. G.O. Ms. No.108 has been issued only to comply with the said order and even in the impugned order, P. Jyothimani, J. has accepted the contention that the State has the power to lay down guidelines and especially since records have been produced to show that a majority of the institutes has complied with the calendar of activities, we cannot sustain the fresh guidelines given by the learned Judge in the order that is assailed herein. We have already confirmed the impugned order as regards communal reservation. As regards Clause (iii), the directions relating to piece-meal approval of staff list are deleted. As regards Clause (vi) and Clause (vii), the calendar of activities is not postponed and it shall come into effect from the academic year 2007-2008 and the approval of the list of teachers shall be in accordance with the NCTE Regulations and the cut-off date shall be as per G.O. Ms. No.108. Approval of the list of teachers sent by the private institutes is not automatic. It shall be considered whether there is compliance with the NCTE Regulations as applicable and the cut-off dates, and appropriate orders will be passed. In all other respects, the impugned order is confirmed and the States appeals are dismissed. 25. We will be dealing with the individual writ petitions where the individual TTIs seek mandamus to approve the staff list or seek to quash the order rejecting the staff list and separate orders will be passed in accordance with our decision above. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the State had requested the NCTE that it will follow Appendix-V of the 2002 Regulations and not Appendix-II of the 2005 Regulations as regards the staff list, unless the individual TTIs specifically exercise their option that they shall be governed by Appendix-II. This is recorded. 26. As regards the appeals filed by the Self-Financing Private Teacher Training Institutes Association, in view of our decision in the appeals filed by the State and for the reasons stated hereinabove, W.A. Nos.361 of 2008 shall stand dismissed. 27. W.A. No.278 of 2008 filed by the Director of Teacher Education is disposed of, holding that unless and until the staff list is approved, even if the students write the examinations, they are not entitled to have the results declared and the decision with regard to individual institutes will be given separately.