JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vineet Saran, J.—The petitioner is a duly recognized institution. On 12.10.2004, the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NCTE’) granted recognition to the petitioner-Institution for an annual intake of 100 seats in B.Ed. course of one year duration, with effect from 6th October, 2004. Then on 5.11.2004, the Chancellor accorded affiliation to the petitioner-College for 100 seats in B.Ed. course for a period of one year. On 7.12.2005, the said affiliation was made absolute. The University Grants Commission also recognized the institution by including the name of the petitioner-College in the list of the colleges prepared under Section 2 (f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. In the meantime, on an application made by the petitioner-Institution to the NCTE for permitting the intake of 25 seats in M.Ed. course, on 31st August, 2007 the NCTE wrote to the State Government for making its recommendation, wherein it was categorically mentioned that as per sub-clause (3) of Clause 7 of the NCTE Regulations notified on 27.12.2005, if no objections were raised within sixty days, it shall be presumed that the State Government has no recommendation to make. Admittedly, the State Government did not respond to the said communication. Then on 6.12.2007 the NCTE granted recognition to the petitioner-College for conducting the M.Ed. course of one year duration with the intake of 25 seats. The University had also got the matter inquired into by a Committee consisting of the Regional Higher Education Officer as well as a Principal of another College and an expert, who was a lecturer in B.Ed. department. The said Committee also made recommendation in favour of the petitioner-Institution and consequently the University recognized the college for running the M.Ed. course with the intake of 25 students. 2. For the next session, the petitioner-College applied for 25 additional seats for M.Ed. course. In response thereto, the NCTE wrote to the State Government on 10th March, 2008 for giving its no objection with the stipulation that in case if no reply was received within sixty days, it shall be presumed that the State Government had no recommendation to make. Consequently, when no reply was received from the State Government within sixty days, then on 14th May, 2008 the NCTE granted recognition to the petitioner-College for additional intake of 25 students for M.Ed. course, that is, total 50 students after including the existing 25 seats. Consequently, when no reply was received from the State Government within sixty days, then on 14th May, 2008 the NCTE granted recognition to the petitioner-College for additional intake of 25 students for M.Ed. course, that is, total 50 students after including the existing 25 seats. The said permission was however subject to fulfilment of requirements as may be prescribed by the other regulatory bodies like UGC and the State Government. After such recognition was granted by the NCTE, the University again constituted a Committee consisting of the Regional Higher Education Officer of the State Government and with a Principal of another institution and an expert lecturer of education department as its member. After conducting the inspection, a report was submitted by the Committee, in which they stated that the norms as required are fulfilled by the petitioner-Institution. 3. Then on 20th June, 2008, the State Government wrote to the NCTE, which was in response to the communication of the NCTE dated 10.3.2008. In the said letter, it was stated that there was no clarification by the NCTE as to whether the petitioner-Institution fulfils all the norms or not. Then on 26.7.2008, the Registrar of the University wrote to the State Government that although the report dated 3.6.2008 of the Committee has been submitted but in view of the State Government’s communication dated 20th June, 2008 to the NCTE, 25 additional seats in M.Ed. course are not permitted to be filled up by the State Government. It is the aforesaid communication dated 20th June, 2008 of the State Government as well as communication dated 26.7.2008 of the University, which have been challenged by filing this writ petition. 4. I have heard Sri P.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner-Institution as well as Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3-University and Sri Rajiv Joshi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2-NCTE. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage. 5. A perusal of the communication dated 20th June, 2008 goes to show that all that the State Government has written to the NCTE is that certain information has not been provided to the State Government by its communication dated 10th March, 2008. 5. A perusal of the communication dated 20th June, 2008 goes to show that all that the State Government has written to the NCTE is that certain information has not been provided to the State Government by its communication dated 10th March, 2008. It is pertinent to note here that the said reply had not been given within the stipulated period of sixty days. Even then the State Government has not raised any objection that the petitioner-College is not fulfilling any particular condition as would be required for grant of such recognition. All that the State Government is doing is that after more than three months of the communication dated 10.3.2008, it is wanting to know from the NCTE as to whether the petitioner fulfils the requisite condition or not. 6. The State Government is there to help out with the cause of education and not to create hindrance in promotion of education by permitting the colleges which comply with the norms, to increase their seats, without even making any inquiry or investigation with regard to the running of the institution, which has been duly recognized for the last several years, the State Government is just wanting to throw a spanner in the works and put a break in the entire process provided under law for grant of recognition to an institution. Prior to the issuance of the letter dated 20th June, 2008, the State Government did not even bother to find out what the report of the Committee constituted by the University had to say, in which the Regional Higher Education Officer, who is an Officer of the State Government, was a member. In the said report, the answers to the queries which have been made in the letter dated 20th June, 2008 have been given. Even in the counter affidavit, it is not pointed out as to which facility is lacking with the petitioner-Institution. All that has been pointed out is in Annexure-CA 3 of the counter affidavit of the State Government, which is hand written letter of the Registrar of the University written to Special Secretary to the State Government. From a bare perusal of the same, it appears that it is a letter which was got written by hand from the Registrar during the pendency of this writ petition. From a bare perusal of the same, it appears that it is a letter which was got written by hand from the Registrar during the pendency of this writ petition. The same does not bear any despatch number or any reference as to why such a letter had been written. All this only goes to show that the State Government is all out to oppose and create hindrance in the grant of recognition, without there being any valid reason. 7. In response to the query as to why the communication of the State Government had been sent after nearly more than ninety days when the objection, if any, had to be given within sixty days, Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State stated that the recognition which had been granted on 14th May, 2008 by the NCTE was subject to the fulfilment of the condition as may be laid down by the State Government, and as such the State Government could raise its objections at any stage. 8. Such submission of Sri R.B. Pradhan is wholly untenable. Even in the letter dated 20th June, 2008, no objection whatsoever has been raised and all that has been stated is that the information has not been proyided by the NCTE in its communication dated 10th March, 2008. It is not understood as to why it took more than three months for the State Government to realize that certain information was required from the NCTE or the University or any other body. If such information was so much wanting, the same should have been called for from the concerned authority immediately. However, as has already been stated, the answers to the queries made in the communication dated 20th June, 2008 have already been given in the report of the Committee, which examined the matter on the request of the University, of which an Officer of the State Government was also a member. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the issuance of the objection/letter dated 20th June, 2008 at a belated stage without there being any valid reason is unjustified and is liable to be quashed. The consequential letter of the Registrar to the State Government refusing to allot 25 additional seats of M.Ed. course to the petitioner-Institution is also unjustified and the same also deserves to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The consequential letter of the Registrar to the State Government refusing to allot 25 additional seats of M.Ed. course to the petitioner-Institution is also unjustified and the same also deserves to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The impugned orders dated 20th June, 2008 and 26.7.2008 passed by respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively are hereby quashed. 11. It is further directed that the State Government shall pass appropriate orders with regard to affiliation of the petitioner-College for allotment of seats in M.Ed. course within three weeks from the presentation of a certified copy of this order before the respondent No. 1 after taking into consideration observations made hereinabove. 13. No order as to cost. ————