Judgment :- Prabha Sridevan, J. In view of our decision in Writ Appeal Nos.137 of 2008 etc. batch where we have held that the staff list submitted by the respective TTIs shall be considered in accordance with the NCTE Regulations and the cut-off dates and appropriate orders hall be passed, the following order is passed. We have grouped the writ petitions filed by the TTIs under two groups. Under the first group, where the rejection of the staff list is unsustainable, we have allowed the writ petitions and therefore, the results of the students can be declared. Under the second group, we have directed the respondents to consider and pass orders on the staff list submitted by the petitioner-institutes and if the staff list is accepted, then the admission of the students in the respective institutes and the examinations written by them will also be in accordance with the rules and the results of the students shall, therefore, be declared. The third group is one where there is grievous error in the staff list submitted by the individual petitioner-institutes and the writ petitions will be dismissed. However, it would be open to the respondents to consider the submission of the staff list by the petitioners for the next academic year, i.e. 2008-2009. W.P. No.3808 of 2008 : In this case, the petitioner had specifically requested that its case be considered in accordance with Appendix-II of the NCTE Regulations. One of the lecturers whose name was included in the staff list submitted by the petitioner had been replaced. Hence, the staff list was not complete when it was submitted to the respondents. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for the year 2008-2009 and pass appropriate orders. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2008 is closed. W.P. No.3893 of 2008 : This writ petition stands closed in view of the fact that for the same academic year, in W.P. No.2099 of 2008, orders have been passed on 2. 2008 with a direction to the respondents to consider afresh the staff list submitted by the petitioner. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2008 is closed. W.P. No.3894 of 2008 : It is seen that the two lecturers in question were appointed before the cut-off date and relieving orders have also been issued and therefore, we are not inclined to uphold the rejection which is purely technical. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2008 is closed. W.P. No.3894 of 2008 : It is seen that the two lecturers in question were appointed before the cut-off date and relieving orders have also been issued and therefore, we are not inclined to uphold the rejection which is purely technical. The writ petition is allowed as prayed for. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2008 is closed. W.P. No.3896 of 2008 : In this case, already an order has been passed in favour of the petitioner in W.P. No.112 of 2008 with regard to the same defect. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the staff list submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within four weeks and depending on the outcome, the results of the students will be declared. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2008 is closed. W.P. No.4064 of 2008 : In this case also, the respondents were directed to approve the staff list by order dated 2. 2008. Depending on the decision taken by the respondents, the results of the students in respect of this petitioner-institute will be declared. The writ petition is accordingly closed. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2008 is also closed. W.P. No.3173 of 2008 : In this case, it is evident that the present teachers in the staff list were appointed long after the cut-off date. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. The staff list submitted by the petitioner may be considered for the next year. Consequently, M.P. Nos.2 and 3 of 2008 are closed. W.P. No.3599 of 2008 : In this case, the petitioner-institute has submitted a staff list containing more number of teachers than required for the intake at present as per the present Regulations. One of the reasons for rejection is that the experience certificate of one Sekar was found to be not genuine. Even if this name is excluded, the number of lecturers satisfies the NCTE Regulations and an undertaking is given on behalf of the petitioner that Sekar will not be appointed. The writ petition is disposed of, subject to the undertaking given by the petitioner, and the staff list submitted by the petitioner shall be considered and orders passed, and if the orders are in favour of the petitioner, the results of the students will be declared. Consequently, M.P. No.2 of 2008 is closed. The writ petition is disposed of, subject to the undertaking given by the petitioner, and the staff list submitted by the petitioner shall be considered and orders passed, and if the orders are in favour of the petitioner, the results of the students will be declared. Consequently, M.P. No.2 of 2008 is closed. W.P. No.4148 of 2008 : In this case, in consideration of the records produced in the typed set of papers, the respondents shall treat the list submitted as one submitted within time. A personal hearing shall be given to the petitioner and thereafter, orders will be passed, subject to which the results of the students will be declared. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2008 is closed. W.P. No.3295 of 2008 : In this case, it is evident that the lecturers whose names find place in the present staff list have been appointed beyond the cut-off date. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Their case for inclusion in the present academic year cannot be closed, but it may be considered in the next academic year. Consequently, M.P. Nos.2 and 3 of 2008 are closed. W.P. No.3791 of 2008 : In this case, admittedly, the recognition granted by the NCTE was only on 29. 2007, i.e. after the cut-off date of 20.6.2006, for the academic year 2007-2008. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider it for the subsequent academic year. Consequently, M.P. No.2 of 2008 is closed. W.P. No.3852 of 2008 : In this case, the petitioner requests that its case may be considered in accordance with Appendix-II Regulations of the year 2007 alone. The writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the petitioners staff list in accordance with Appendix-II and pass appropriate orders. W.P. No.5633 of 2008 : In view of the orders passed in W.P. No.3852 of 2008, no orders are required in this writ petition and the writ petition stands accordingly closed. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2008 is closed.