Judgement SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. :- These writ appeals have been filed against a common judgment and order dated 23-8-2007, passed in batch of 117 writ petitions by the learned single Judge of this Court. 2. The brief facts are that the appellants/ petitioners and many other similarly situated persons were candidates who appeared in entrance examination for admission to the Bachelor of Education (for short B.Ed.) courses run by the Universities in the State of Chhattisgarh. The entrance examination, commonly called as pre-B.Ed. examination 2007, was conducted by Chhattisgarh Vyaysaik Pariksha Mandal, Raipur. The advertisement as also the prospectus/examination form for the said examination published/issued by the concerned authority would show that the minimum qualification for admission to the B.Ed. course was that the candidate must have passed a three years degree course from a recognized University. The source of this essential qualification was Rule 4 of the Rules framed by the State Government vide notification dated 20-4-2006 called as Chhattisgarh B.Ed. Pravesh Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules 2006). As per the above qualification, i.e. graduation, the appellants/petitioners applied for appearing in the pre-Ed. examination and their forms were accepted. They appeared in the examination which was conducted on 13-6-2007 and were declared passed in the result dated 3-7-2007. However, when a publication for counseling was made on 17-7-2007, a rider was shown in the publication that a candidate who has secured at least 50% marks either in the Bachelor's Degree or in Master's Degree or any qualification equivalent thereto, shall only be eligible for admission to the B.Ed. courses, whereas this rider of percentage was not there in the advertisement for the examination or in the prospectus/form published by the concerned authority. It was at this stage, the aforesaid action of the concerned authorities were challenged by the writ petitioners, including the appellants, and the petitions were entertained. But ultimately, the writ petitions were dismissed by the impugned common order and while dismissing the writ petitions, the learned single Judge held that the petitioners would be entitled to refund of all the payments made by them in making application forms and counseling fee thereafter. 3. But ultimately, the writ petitions were dismissed by the impugned common order and while dismissing the writ petitions, the learned single Judge held that the petitioners would be entitled to refund of all the payments made by them in making application forms and counseling fee thereafter. 3. Before the writ Court, the Government took stand that the standard in respect of examinations leading to teacher education qualifications; criteria for admission to such examinations and schemes of courses or training have to be fixed by the National Council for Teacher Education (in short NCTE) established under the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (in short NCTE Act). No examining body (the concerned Universities in the present cases), is authorized to hold the examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a recognized institution, unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the NCTE. They further contended that the NCTE which is the duly empowered authority for prescribing minimum qualifications for the purpose of being eligible for taking up the B.Ed. courses, has, vide Gazette Notification dated 20-7-2006 (published in the Gazette of India, extraordinary, dated 21-7-2005) promulgated the National Counsel for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations, 2006 (for short Regulations) and as per Regulation 3.2 the minimum eligibility for getting admission into a course leading to the decree of B.Ed. was fixed that a candidate must have at least 50% marks either in Bachelor's Degree and/or in the Master's Degree or any other qualification equivalent thereto with a relaxation of 5% for the candidates belonging to SC, ST and OBC categories. They also contended that thereafter, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur vide Notification dated 10-4-2007 and Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur vide notification dated 2-7-2007 have also affected the necessary amendment in their ordinance accordingly. The amendment in Rules 2006 was also brought by the State Government vide notification dated 6-6-2007 by amending Rule 4(b) of the said Rules by inserting the above qualifications as per NCTE Regulations. And it is in this light, the aforesaid rider was published in the counseling notice dated 17-7-2007. 4. The learned single Judge held that the qualification fixed by the NCTE Regulations 2006 was binding on the State and it will have overriding effect on the State Rules, prospectively. And it is in this light, the aforesaid rider was published in the counseling notice dated 17-7-2007. 4. The learned single Judge held that the qualification fixed by the NCTE Regulations 2006 was binding on the State and it will have overriding effect on the State Rules, prospectively. However, the State Government did not take immediate steps to amend their Rules accordingly and subsequently, it was amended on 6th June 2007. Thereafter, the written examination was conducted on 13-6-2007 and the results were declared on 3-7-2007. The publication for counseling was made on 17-7-2007 and in that a rider was published by the Government as above. The learned Single Judge held that the petitioners have not acquired any right on the basis of the qualification prescribed in the Rules, 2006 (earlier to the amendment) which was in contravention of the qualifications prescribed by the NCTE in Regulations, 2006. Holding all these, the petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge as while dismissing the petitions, it was directed that since the petitioners had appeared in the examination on the basis of misrepresentation made by the State Government in the prospectus wherein despite change in the prescribed qualification by Regulations 2006, the State Government continued with the old provisions, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to refund of all the payments made by them in making application forms and counseling fee thereafter. 5. It was brought to our notice that the State Government has not filed any appeal against this part of the order. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, argued that the NCTE Regulations were not binding on the State and the minimum qualification fixed by the State was without any basis. They secondly argued that when the prospectus containing the eligibility criteria etc. was distributed on 20-4-2007 and the selection process was already on, the norms of selection could not have been altered and the State Rules 2006 prescribing qualification, amended during continuation of selection process, would not affect the rights of the petitioners and the learned Single Judge erred in law in dismissing their writ petitions on the above grounds. They relied on the decisions rendered in the matters of P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1990 SC 405 and Secretary, A. P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna, (2005) 4 SCC 154. 7. They relied on the decisions rendered in the matters of P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1990 SC 405 and Secretary, A. P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna, (2005) 4 SCC 154. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ petitions tagged with the respective appeals. 8. So far as the first argument regarding NCTE Regulations are concerned, admittedly, these regulations were framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 32 of the NCTE Act. The object and reasons of enactment would show that the said Act was brought with a view to achieve and maintain the standards of the teachers education and to enable the NCTE to guide the system of teacher education by conferring it with statutory status, with the objective of determination, maintenance and coordination of standards in teacher education, laying down norms and guidelines for various courses, promotion of innovation in this field and establishment of a suitable system of continuing education of teachers. It was enacted to empower the Council to make qualitative improvement in the system of teacher education by phasing out substandard institutions and courses for teacher education with a further power to NCTE to grant recognition to institutions for teacher education and permission to recognized institutions for new course or training in teacher education. Section 14 of the Act deals with the recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education. It reads as under : "14. Recognition of institutions offering course of training in teacher education :- (1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations : Provided that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. (2) The fee to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. (2) The fee to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee from any institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall, - (a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulations; or (b) If it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing recognition to such institution for reasons to be recorded in writing; Provided that before passing an order under sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the concerned institution for making a written representation. (4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teacher education under subsection (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government. (5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3). (6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under sub-section (4), - (a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or (b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused." 9. Section 16 of the Act provides for affiliating body to grant affiliation after cognition or permission by the Council. It provides that no examining body shall grant affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution; or hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a recognized institution unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned, under Section 14 or permission for a course or training under Section 15. It provides that no examining body shall grant affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution; or hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a recognized institution unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned, under Section 14 or permission for a course or training under Section 15. Therefore, a conjoint reading of Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Act would show that for running the courses of B.Ed. grant of recognition for an institution is a must and after grant of recognition, an affiliation has to be granted by the examining body, then only, a course in relation to the teachers training may be run by such institution after taking a further permission to run such course or training u/S. 15 of the NCTE Act, 1993. Section 32 provides for power to make regulations which says that the Council may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder generally to carry out the provisions of this Act. Sub-sec. (2) of Section 32 provides for matters, on which the regulations may be framed and the subject like fixation of minimum qualifications for the person to be employed as a teacher in the schools or the recognized institutions and the specified category of courses etc. as also on many other matters which are covered by Sections 12, 14, 15, 19 etc. are there. Certainly, these powers have been vested with the Council for the reasons and with an intention to achieve the ultimate goal of the Act and the regulations made by the Council under such powers, in view of the provisions of Sections 14 and 16 of the Act, would be applicable to the recognized institutions which are affiliated for running the course of teachers training as per the Act and in this manner, the regulations, made by the NCTE regarding fixation of minimum qualification for admission to the B.Ed. course i.e. 50% marks in graduation or post-graduation for the general candidates and 45% marks for the SC, ST and OBC candidates was binding over the institutions recognized and affiliated under the NCTE Act 1993 having overriding effect and the argument that the aforesaid regulation was not binding on the State, cannot be accepted. 10. course i.e. 50% marks in graduation or post-graduation for the general candidates and 45% marks for the SC, ST and OBC candidates was binding over the institutions recognized and affiliated under the NCTE Act 1993 having overriding effect and the argument that the aforesaid regulation was not binding on the State, cannot be accepted. 10. So far as the second argument regarding change of eligibility criteria is concerned, the same has no force. It is not a case where the eligibility criteria was changed during the process of selection. In this case, the NCTE Regulations were framed on 20-7-2006 whereas the prospectus for pre-B.Ed. examination was published on 20-4-2007 and the written examination was conducted on 13-6-2007 and the results were declared on 3-7-2007. The State Government has published the prospectus as per the Rules 2006 which were framed on 20-4-2006 in which the essential qualification was only graduation by 3 years degree course but later on when the mistake was discovered the amendments were made in the Rules of 2006 in Rule 4(a) on 6-6-2007 i.e. prior to the date of examination; therefore, such an event, in view of the Regulations dated 20-7-2006 made by NCTE, would not be an incident of changing of eligibility criteria during the course of process of selection as the said criteria was already there from 20-7-2006 and the State Government was at fault in not appending it to their local rules at the early stage and publishing the prospectus as per the local rules without taking care of the provisions of NCTE Regulations. But such kind of fault on the part of the State does not confer any right to the appellants to appear in the examination or to get them selected even after appearing in the examination. The judgment rendered by the Apex Court in P. Mahendran's case (AIR 1990 SC 405) (supra) is distinguishable as in the said case, in the Recruitment Rules existing on 6-10-1983 itself, holders of diploma in Mechanical Engineering were eligible for appointment to the Post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors along with holders of Diploma in Automobile Engineering. Thereafter certain amendments were made in the Rules on 14th of May 1987 and the selections were rendered illegal. Thereafter certain amendments were made in the Rules on 14th of May 1987 and the selections were rendered illegal. In that case the Apex Court said that if the rules have no retrospective effect, the selection has to be completed in accordance with law as it stood at its commencement and the amended rule would not invalidate the selection already made. But in case on hand, there was already a provision by the NCTE Regulations. Moreover, the State has also amended the law prior to the date of examination. Therefore, the said judgment is not helpful to the appellants. Similar is the situation in the matter of B. Swapna (supra). In the said case also the Apex Court held that the norms of the selection cannot be altered after commencement of the selection process. Rules prescribing qualification amended during continuation of the selection process, have prospective operation unless expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. The said judgment is also distinguishable on the same point as the earlier judgment. This is not the case in which certain rules have been framed afresh after commencement of the selection process and they are being given retrospective effect. As stated earlier, when the regulations were already there having a binding nature over the State or the recognized institutions of the State for which the process of selection for admissions was going on, the same had to be followed. 11. In the result, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge. The appeals have no merits. The same are not worth admission. They are accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. Appeals dismissed.