Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1825 (RAJ)

Sampat STC Mahavidhyalaya v. State of Rajasthan

2009-08-13

M.N.BHANDARI

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - In these bunch of writ petitions, a challenge has been made to the orders of the National Council for Teacher Education (for short 'the NCTE' ) dated 27.1.2009 and 17.3.2009 coupled with a challenge to the order of the State Government dated 3.1.2009. 2. It is stated that petitioner applied for grant of recognition to their institutions for the courses mentioned in the memo of the writ petitions. The application for recognition was made pursuant to the advertisement issued by the NCTE on 1.10.2008. Last date for submission of the application was 31.10.2008. This was for academic year 2009-2010. Most of the writ petitions out of the bunch are in respect of recognition of course for academic year 2009-2010. Other writ petitions pertain to academic year 2008-2009 where the grievance of the petitioner institutions is that they were not granted recognition and at the same time certain other institutions made application subsequently were given recognition by the NCTE. Thus, issue of discrimination in the action of the NCTE has been challenged. 3. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioner institutions submit that after enactment of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short the Act of 1993"" ), it is only the NCTE which is having final authority to grant or refuse recognition of the institutions for the courses for which council is having authority. For the purpose of regulating teacher education throughout the country, initially regulations were framed in the year 2002 followed by Regulations of 2007 which are called as National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2007 (for short 'the Regulations' ). Regulations of 2007 were further amended by the amending Regulations of 2008 and accordingly respondent - NCTE is under an obligation to act as per the provisions of the Act of 1993 and Regulations of 2007 so amended in the year 2008. As per Regulations 5 & 6 of the Regulations, application along with requisite documents is required to be submitted by the institution in triplicate with prescribed process fee of Rs. 40,000/-. Regulation 7 of the Regulations provides procedure for processing of the application. As per Clause 7(1) of the Regulations, NCTE can point out deficiencies, if so found, within a period of 30 days. The institution is to thereafter cure the deficiencies within a period of 90 days from the date of communication. 40,000/-. Regulation 7 of the Regulations provides procedure for processing of the application. As per Clause 7(1) of the Regulations, NCTE can point out deficiencies, if so found, within a period of 30 days. The institution is to thereafter cure the deficiencies within a period of 90 days from the date of communication. As per Clause 7(2) of the Regulations, NCTE is under an obligation to send a copy of the application to the State Government because as per Clause 7(3) of the Regulations, the State Government is required to send its recommendations within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt. It is provided in the aforesaid clauses that if necessary recommendations are not made by the State Government within a period of 60 days, then there would be presumption that State Government has no objection. As per Clause 7(4) of the Regulations, NCTE will arrange for inspection of the institution on removal of the deficiencies. The Regulations entail inspection of infrastructural, equipment and instructional facilities etc. Inspection has to be made by the Team of Experts. The aforesaid inspection is to be conducted within a period of 30 days from the receipt of consent from the applicant institution. The provisions of Clause 7(5) of the Regulations further provides that how the inspection would be made by the Visiting Team. 4. The allegation of the petitioner institutions is that while petitioner institutions made applications for grant of recognition for academic year 2008-2009, their matters were kept pending despite of inspection carried out and deficiencies removed. It is more so when for the same academic year many other institutions made applications subsequent to the petitioner institutions were not only entertained but recognition was also granted. The other grievance of the petitioners is that even for academic year 2009-2010, initially State Government issued an order on 17.11.2009 informing the NCTE not to grant recognition to any institution in view of the fact that 787 institutions have already granted recognition presently where 90000 or more candidates are given education for Training Course. This is apart from 321 institutions working imparting education for STC/STC(Sanskrit)/Sikshashatri Course wherein more than 25000 candidates are given training, thus in all more than 115000 candidates are given education as against the employment offered is to the extent of 20000 per year. This is apart from 321 institutions working imparting education for STC/STC(Sanskrit)/Sikshashatri Course wherein more than 25000 candidates are given training, thus in all more than 115000 candidates are given education as against the employment offered is to the extent of 20000 per year. It is stated that aforesaid order of the State Government dated 17.11.2000 was subject matter of the writ petitions preferred by many institutions earlier. The High Court vide its judgment dated 7.1.2009 set aside the order dated 17.11.2009 so as the order dated 19.11.2008. The High Court had further given direction to NCTE to look into the matter independently and to take a decision thereupon. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite of a clear direction of the High Court to NCTE for taking an independent decision on the applications of the petitioner institutions, NCTE had taken a stereo type adverse decision ignoring the judgment and direction given therein and despite of the fact that the Government"" s decision was set aside, thus petitioners are seriously aggrieved by the action of the NCTE. 5. It is stated that vide impugned orders, NCTE has shown to have taken an independent decision denying grant of recognition to any of the institutions for the B.Ed./STC/Shikshashatri Courses in Rajasthan for academic year 2009-2010 and returned the applications accordingly, but the said decision is nothing but endorsing the decision of the State Government. 6. Learned counsels for petitioner institutions mainly placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others reported in (2006) 9 SCC 1 , apart from the judgment in the case of Java Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary to Government Higher Education Department reported in (2000) 5 SCC 231 and also the judgment in the case of State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and others reported in (1995) 4 SCC 104 . Referring to aforesaid judgments, it has been stressed that the State Government has no authority to deny grant of no objection certificate and order issued on 17.11.2008 so as the order dated 19.11.2008 issued by the State Government having been set aside by this Court, the NCTE being a statutory body should have taken independent and proper view in accordance with the Regulations. It is urged that ground of availability of trained teachers and unemployment thereupon cannot be taken as a ground to deny the recognition. The Constitution guarantees certain fundamental rights and in view of the denial of the recognition to the petitioner institutions, their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(G) of the Constitution of India are violated. The petitioner institutions have already created infrastructures by incurring a huge amount and they are having team of the teachers on the roles and are paying salary without work. The action of the respondents is causing heavy losses to the petitioner institutions. According to learned counsels for petitioners, similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar (supra) and therein the Hon'ble Apex Court dealing with the identical situation held the State action to be illegal. In the aforesaid case, the earlier judgments delivered in the case of Jai Gokul (supra) and Adhiyaman (supra) were also considered. Thus, in the light of those judgments, it is stated that these bunch of the writ petitions may be allowed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for NCTE made detailed arguments in reference to the provisions of the Act of 1993 and Regulations made thereunder coupled with the guidelines for grant of recognition. The counsel appearing for NCTE submitted that main object of the NCTE to achieve the planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country and to achieve the same, not only Regulations were made in the year 2002, but thereafter in 2007 and amended in the year 2008 to provide norms for recognition procedure thereupon. Referring to the Regulation 7 of the Regulations, it was stated that it is not necessary for NCTE to grant recognition under all circumstances rather after issuing advertisement dated 1.10.2008, a general notice was issued not to process the applications for the reasons stated therein. This was primarily for the reason that NCTE took a decision to regulate growth of the teacher training institutions and as the NCTE is having jurisdiction throughout the country, thus they remain dependent on the State Government for providing facts and figures. After taking such information to be an input, the NCTE took a decision. This was primarily for the reason that NCTE took a decision to regulate growth of the teacher training institutions and as the NCTE is having jurisdiction throughout the country, thus they remain dependent on the State Government for providing facts and figures. After taking such information to be an input, the NCTE took a decision. Copy of the public notice along with the copy of the letter dated 1.10.2008 and 31.10.2008 were placed along with the reply and referring to those documents, learned counsel canvassed that the NCTE took a proper decision for non-grant of recognition to the institutions for the academic year 2009-2010 in the State of Rajasthan. 8. Averting to the matters of academic year 2008-2009 and allegation of discrimination in that regard, learned counsel for NCTE submitted that though allegation of discrimination has been made, but same is without any basis. It is stated that the institutions which removed the deficiencies as pointed out were granted recognition leaving others who failed to remove the deficiencies in time. The petitioner institutions are those institutions, who failed to remove the deficiencies in time and accordingly they could not get recognition. According to learned counsel, a direction for recognition for the academic year 2008-2009 cannot be issued now looking to the fact that aforesaid academic year 2008-2009 is at the fag end. Thus, all the writ petitions pertaining to academic year 2008-2009 are to be rendered infructuous. 9. A reference of the earlier decision of the High Court was also given wherein direction for grant of recognition was ordered in view of grant of recognition to 13 institutions after undertaking exercise beyond cut of date. It is stated that matter is now pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court and otherwise even if NCTE had committed illegality earlier, it should not be perpetuated by the Court. So far as academic year 2009-2010 is concerned, pursuant to the direction of the High Court, matter was considered again by the NCTE and thereupon an independent decision was taken not to permit recognition to any institution either for opening or to increase the intake capacity for the aforesaid academic year. The information given by the State Government was taken as input which otherwise is permissible under the Regulations, thus it is stated that the NCTE has not acted on the instruction of the Government. A reference of guidelines in that regard was also given. The information given by the State Government was taken as input which otherwise is permissible under the Regulations, thus it is stated that the NCTE has not acted on the instruction of the Government. A reference of guidelines in that regard was also given. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of Sant Dnyaneshwar (surpa) apart from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh v. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (1986) 4 SCC 361 and the case of St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education and another reported in (2003) 3 SCC 321 . It is submitted that decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Jaya Gokul (supra) and Adhiyaman (supra) are distinguishable. The prayer of learned counsel for NCTE is that writ petitions so preferred by the petitioner institutions are devoid of merit, thus be rejected. 10. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Rajasthan also opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. Counsel mainly supported the arguments made by learned counsel for NCTE and clarified that informations sent by the State Government were taken as input for an independent decision by the NCTE. Giving the figures, it is submitted that with the existing recognised institutions, the availability of trained teachers in year comes to around 120070 as against the availability of trained teachers to be 8273 for the academic year 2003-2004. For the year 2008-2009, 5593 vacancies were advertised for the teachers wherein around 4 lacs trained teachers made applications, thus even from those applicants 3.95 lacs trained teachers are unemployed. This is apart from a material fact that for the academic 2008-2009, around 622 seats remained vacant even in the existing institutions. Thus, all these figures apart from various other details were the input for NCTE to take a decision. During the course of oral argument, it was also stated that with the mushroom growth of the institutions, it is seen that even the institutions already granted recognition are facing difficulty to have the required faculty. The NCTE is making survey throughout the country and many of the recognised institutions were then de-recognized by them for such reasons. 11. During the course of oral argument, it was also stated that with the mushroom growth of the institutions, it is seen that even the institutions already granted recognition are facing difficulty to have the required faculty. The NCTE is making survey throughout the country and many of the recognised institutions were then de-recognized by them for such reasons. 11. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that so far as arguments regarding the violation of the fundamental rights are concerned, in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, it is not provided that even if legislation provides for carrying out certain things in a particular manner, yet contrary to the regulations a person is having fundamental right to run the profession or the business. The fundamental rights are not absolute but are governed by just exception pursuant to the provisions of law. 12. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 13. From the arguments made by the parties, I found that following questions are to be determined:- 1. Whether NCTE is having authority to deny recognition to the institutions vide the impugned order? 2. Whether there exists discrimination in the action of the respondent - NCTE in denying grant of approval to many institutions for the academic year 2008-2009? 3. Whether fundamental rights of the petitioner institutions are violated? 4. What is the effect of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar? 14. Coming to the first issue, it is necessary to reiterate certain facts, which are basically in regard to petitions praying for grant of recognition for the academic year 2009-2010, which is even applicable for those institutions which made application for grant of recognition for the academic year 2008-2009. If the impugned order is taken note of then order dated 27.1.2009 shows that NCTE had considered the matter in the light of the judgment of this Court dated 7.1.2009. The NCTE had taken a decision that as a temporary measure no recognition is to be given to any institutions in the State of Rajasthan for the academic year 2009-2010. This is to regulate the growth of the teacher training institutions pending state-wise assessment of the manpower requirement of the teachers in the country. The detail survey and analysis to assess the manpower requirement of the teachers is likely to be completed very soon. This is to regulate the growth of the teacher training institutions pending state-wise assessment of the manpower requirement of the teachers in the country. The detail survey and analysis to assess the manpower requirement of the teachers is likely to be completed very soon. Till the surveys are completed, informations supplied by the respective State were taken as input and after considering the informations, it was decided not to grant recognition to any institution. The question for consideration of this Court is as to whether NCTE is having authority to pass such an order or not. For this purpose, reference of Section 14 of the Act of 1993 and Regulation 7 of the Regulations are relevant, thus both the provisions are quoted hereunder for ready reference:- "Section - 14. (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 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 is to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. (2) The fee is 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 fulfills 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 fulfill 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 sub-section (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." "7. Processing of applications : (1) The applicant institutions shall ensure submission of applications complete in all respects. However, in order to cover the inadvertent omissions or deficiencies in documents, the office of the Regional Committee shall point out the deficiencies within 30 days of receipt of the applications, which the appellants shall remove within 90 days. No application shall be processed if the processing fees of Rs. 40,000/- is not submitted and such applicantions would be returned to the applicant institutions. No application shall be processed if the processing fees of Rs. 40,000/- is not submitted and such applicantions would be returned to the applicant institutions. (2) Simultaneously, on receipt of application, a written communication along with a copy of the application form submitted by the institution(s) shall be sent by the office of Regional Committee to the State Government/UT Administration concerned. (3) On receipt of the communication, the State Government/ UT Administration concerned shall furnish its recommendations of the applications to the office of the Regional Committee concerned of the National Council for Teacher Education within 60 days from receipt. If the recommendation is negative, the State Government/UT Administration shall provide detailed reasons/ grounds thereof with necessary statistics, which shall be taken into consideration by the Regional Committee concerned while deciding the application. If no communication is received from the State Government/UT Administration within the stipulated 60 days, it shall be presumed that the State Government/UT Administration concerned has no recommendation to make. (4) After removal of all the deficiencies and to the satisfaction of the Regional Committee concerned, the inspection of infrastructure, equipments, instructional facilities etc. of an institution shall be conducted by a team of experts called Visiting Team (VT) with a view to assessing the level of preparedness of the institution to commence the course. Inspection would be subject to the consent of the institution and submission of the self-attested copy of the completion certificate of the building. Such inspection, as far as administratively and logistically possible, shall be in the chronological order of the date of receipt of the consent of the institution. In case the consent from more than one institution is received on the same day, alphabetical order may be followed. The inspection shall be conducted within 30 days of receipt of the consent of the institution. (5) At the time of the visit of the team of experts to an institution, the institution concerned shall arrange for the inspection to be videographed in a manner that all important infrastructural and instructional facilities are videographed along with interaction with the management and the staff (if available). The visiting teams, as far as possible, shall finalise and courier their reports along with the video tapes on the same day. (6) The application and the report along with the video tapes/CDs etc. The visiting teams, as far as possible, shall finalise and courier their reports along with the video tapes on the same day. (6) The application and the report along with the video tapes/CDs etc. of the Visiting Team shall be placed before the Regional Committee concerned for consideration and appropriate decision. (7) The Regional Committee shall decide grant of recognition or permission to an institution only after satisfying itself that the institution fulfills all the conditions prescribed by the NCTE under the NCTE Act, Rules or Regulations, including, inter alia, the norms and standards laid down for the relevant teacher education programme/course. (8) In the matter of grant of recognition, the Regional Committees shall strictly act within the ambit of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, the National Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997 as amended from time to time and the regulations made under the NCTE Act, 1993 including the norms and standards for various teacher education programmes and shall not make any relaxation thereto. The Regional Directors, who is the convener of the Regional Committee, while putting up the proposals to the Regional Committee, shall ensure that the correct provisions in the NCTE Act, Rules and Regulations including Norms and Standards for various Teacher Education Programmes are brought to the notice of the Regional Committee to enable the Regional Committee to take appropriate decisions. (9) The institution concerned shall be informed, through a letter, of the decision for grant of recognition or permission subject to appointment of qualified faculty members before the commencement of the academic session. The letter issued under this clause shall not be notified in the Gazette. The faculty shall be appointed on the recommendations of the Selection Committee duly constituted as per the policy of the State Govt./Central Govt./University/UGC or the concerned affiliating body, as the case may be. The applicant institution shall submit an affidavit in the prescribed form that the Selection Committee has been constituted as stated above. A separate staff list with the details would be submitted in the prescribed form. The Regional Committee would rely on the above affidavit and the staff list before processing the case for grant of formal recognition. The applicant institution shall submit an affidavit in the prescribed form that the Selection Committee has been constituted as stated above. A separate staff list with the details would be submitted in the prescribed form. The Regional Committee would rely on the above affidavit and the staff list before processing the case for grant of formal recognition. (10) All the applicant institutions shall launch their own website soon after the receipt of the letter from the Regional Committee under Regulation 7(9) covering, inter alia, the details of the institution, its location, name of the course applied for with intake, availability of physical infrastructure (land, building, office, classrooms and other facilities/ amenitis), instructional facilities (laboratory, library etc.) and the particulars of their proposed teaching and non-teaching staff etc. with photographs, for informatin of all concerned. (11) The institution concerned, after appointing the requisite faculty/staff as per Regulation 7(9) above and fulfilling the conditions under Regulation 7(10) above shall formally inform the Regional Committee concerned along with the requisite affidavit and staff list. The Regional Committee concerned shall then issue a formal recognition order that shall be notified as per provision of the NCTE Act. (12) In cases where the Regional Committee, after consideration of the report of the Visiting Team, is of the opinion that the institution does not fulfill the requirements for starting/conducting the course or for enhancement of intake, such an institution will be allowed one more opportunity for removal of the deficiencies. In case an inspection is considered desirable by the Regional Committee, the institution concerned shall again deposit a fee of Rs. 40,000/- to the Regional Committee concerned through a demand draft from any Nationalised Bank drawn in the favour of the Member Secretary, NCTE payable at the city where the Regional Committee is located. However, no such fee is required if the deficiencies pointed out are minor in nature not involving civil construction or the like and the rectifications are verifiable without physical inspection. The decision of the Regional Committee shall be final in this regard. (13) The reports of inspection of the institutions along with the names of the Visiting Team Experts shall be made available on the official website of the Regional Committee concerned after the same have been considered by the Regional Committee." 15. It is necessary to quote even guidelines as provided by the NCTE for grant of approval as under:- "1. (13) The reports of inspection of the institutions along with the names of the Visiting Team Experts shall be made available on the official website of the Regional Committee concerned after the same have been considered by the Regional Committee." 15. It is necessary to quote even guidelines as provided by the NCTE for grant of approval as under:- "1. The establishment of Teacher Training Institutions by Government, private managements or any other agencies should largely be determined by assessed need for trained teachers. This need should take into consideration the supply of trained teachers from existing institutions, the requirement of such teachers in relation to enrolment projections at various stages, the attrition rates among trained teachers due to superannuation, change of occupation, death etc. and the number of trained teachers on the live register of the employment exchanges seeking employment and the possibility of their deployment. The States having more than the required number of trained teachers may not encourage opening of new institutions for teacher education or to increase the intake. 2. States having shortage of trained teachers may encourage establishment of new institutions for teacher education and to increase intake capacity for various levels of teacher education institutions keeping in view the requirements of teachers estimated for the next 10-15 years. 3. Preference might be given to institutions which tend to emphasise the preparation of teachers for subjects (such as Science, Mathematics, English etc.) for which trained teachers have been in short supply in relation to requirement of schools. 4. Apart from the usual courses for teacher preparation, institutions which propose to concern themselves with new emerging specialties (e.g. computer education, use of electronic media, guidance and counselling etc.) should receive priority. Provisions for these should however, be made only after ensuring that requisite manpower, equipment and infrastructure are available. These considerations will also be kept in view by the institution intending to provide for optional subjects to be chosen by students such as guidance and counselling special education etc. 5. With a view to ensuring supply of qualified and trained teachers for such specialties education of the disabled non-formal education, education of adults, preschool education, vocational education etc. special efforts and incentives may be provided to motivate private managements/ voluntary organizations for establishment of institutions, which lay emphasis on these areas. 6. 5. With a view to ensuring supply of qualified and trained teachers for such specialties education of the disabled non-formal education, education of adults, preschool education, vocational education etc. special efforts and incentives may be provided to motivate private managements/ voluntary organizations for establishment of institutions, which lay emphasis on these areas. 6. With a view to promoting professional commitment among prospective teachers, institutions which can ensure adequate residential facilities for the Principal and staff of the institutions as well as hostel facilities for substantial proportion of its enrolment should be encouraged. 7. Considering that certain areas (tribal, hilly regions etc.) have found it difficult to attain qualified and trained teachers, it would be desirable to encourage establishment of trained institutions in those areas. 8. Institutions should be allowed to come into existence only if the sponsors are able to ensure that they have adequate material and manpower resources in terms, for instance, of qualified teachers and other staff, adequate buildings and other infrastructure (laboratory, library, etc.) a reserve fund and operating funds to meet the day to day requirement of the institution, including payment of salaries, provision of equipment etc. Laboratories, teaching science methodologies and practicals should have adequate gas plants, proper fittings and regular supply of water, electricity, etc. They should also have adequate arrangements. Capabilities of the institution for filing norms prepared by NCTE may be kept in view. 9. In the establishment of an institution preference need to be given to locations which have large catchment area in terms of schools of different levels where student teachers can be exposed to demonstration lessons and undertake practice teaching. A training institution which has a demonstration school where innovative and experimental approaches can be demonstrated could be given preference." 16. Perusal of the provisions of the Act, Regulations and Guidelines shows that a provision exists for sending application of the applicant to seek recommendation of the State Government as is clear from Regulation 7(2) of the Regulations and as per Regulation 9(3), the State Government is to make its recommendation. In view of the direction of the Apex Court in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar (supra), maximum period for sending the recommendation by the State Government has also been provided with deeming clause. In view of the direction of the Apex Court in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar (supra), maximum period for sending the recommendation by the State Government has also been provided with deeming clause. In the light of the provisions of the Regulations and the Guidelines, if we look into the matter, then it cannot be said that NCTE had no authority to deny recognition to the institutions based on the informations supplied by the State Government. It may be true that the State Government may not be the final authority to deny or come in the way of an institution to get recognition. For that purposes, it is only the NCTE which is having final authority as has been held in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar (supra), but the impugned order shows that NCTE has taken decision not to grant recognition to the institutions to achieve the objects for which Act of 1993 was enacted. The requirements of manpower and other aspects are said to be under survey, thus presently the informations supplied by the State Government were taken as an input to decide the issue as to whether institution should be given recognition or not. Since it was a decision in respect of all the institutions based on informations, pursuant to the Regulations of 2007 and guidelines, therefore, on facts policy decision of the NCTE cannot be held to be illegal or without authority of law rather NCTE being an expert body, their decision cannot be overruled by this Court in a casual manner in view of the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. To maintain excellence of the level of the education and all related issues, the Council constituted as per the Central Government Legislation is the competent body and the decision taken by such a body cannot be brushed aside casually rather it is not available for judicial review. 17. Now considering the aforesaid aspect in reference of the judgments cited by the parties. Since both the parties have relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar (supra), it would be gainful to make a reference of the certain facts pertaining to that case. In the aforesaid case, NCTE had granted recognition to an institution and after grant of such recognition, State of Maharashtra took a policy decision not to grant No Objection Certificate for starting B.Ed. In the aforesaid case, NCTE had granted recognition to an institution and after grant of such recognition, State of Maharashtra took a policy decision not to grant No Objection Certificate for starting B.Ed. Colleges for the academic year 2005-2006. Challenge to the decision was made before the Bombay High Court and therein Bombay High Court allowed the petitions holding that State of Maharashtra and Maharashtra University have no authority to act contrary to the decision of the NCTE and accordingly writs were granted. The matter come up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in view of the SLP preferred by the State of Maharashtra. Hon'ble Apex Court dealing with the relevant aspect came to the conclusion that when the higher education is the subject matter of union list as per entries No. 63 to 66 and referring to entry No. 66, it was taken note that higher education is to be regulated by the union. After taking note of the union list, entries of state list, as was amended, has also been taken note of. Based on those aspects, the Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that matter being of higher education, NCTE Act was enacted in the year 1993 and in view of the aforesaid enactment, it is the authority of the NCTE which would prevail and State Government is not having authority to nullify the decision taken by the Council so constituted under the Central Legislation. While deciding the aforesaid issue, reference of various judgments were also made which includes reference of Jaya Gokul and Adhiyaman"" s case (supra). Taking note of the two judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that even if State Legislation exists in regard to higher or technical education then the State Legislation will not prevail to the extent of repugnancy and it is only the Central Legislation which will hold the field and accordingly to the extent State Legislation found to be repugnant to the Central Legislation, it was held to be illegal and matters were decided accordingly. Para 35 of the aforesaid judgment makes a reference of Regulation of 1995 whereas Para 37 of the aforesaid judgment makes a reference of the Guidelines. In para 38, a reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of St. Johns (supra) has been made. Para 35 of the aforesaid judgment makes a reference of Regulation of 1995 whereas Para 37 of the aforesaid judgment makes a reference of the Guidelines. In para 38, a reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of St. Johns (supra) has been made. Para 35, 38 & 40 of the aforesaid judgment apart from para 41, 42, 65, 66, 67 & 68 are quoted hereunder for ready reference;- 35. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 32 of the Act, the Council framed Regulations known as the National Council for Teacher Education (Form of application for recognition, the time-limit of submission of application, determination of norms and standards for recognition of teacher education programmes and permission to start new course or training) Regulations, 1995. Regulation 5 deals with the manner of making application and Regulation 8 relates to conditions for recognition. Clauses (e), (f) and (g) of Regulation 5 read as under: "5. (e) Every institution intending to offer a course or training in teacher education but was not functioning immediately before 17.8.1995, shall submit application for recognition with a no-objection certificate from the State or Union Territory in which the institution is located. (f) Application for permission to start new course or training and/or to increase intake by recognised institutions under Regulation 4 above shall be submitted to the Regional Committee concerned with no-objection certificate from the State or Union Territory in which the institution is located. (g) The State Government shall make available to the concerned Regional Committee of NCTE its views/recommendations which will be considered by the Regional Committee while taking a decision on the application for recognition." 38. In St. John Teachers Training Institute, the validity of the Regulations, particularly clauses (e) & (f) of Regulation 5 came to be challenged. It was contended that the provision for submitting an application for recognition with NOC issued by the State Government or Union Territory in which the institution was situated was invalid and ultra vires. It was argued that Section 14 of the Act mandates NCTE to grant recognition if it is satisfied that the institution making an application for the grant of recognition has fulfilled the necessary requirements laid down in the said section. It was argued that Section 14 of the Act mandates NCTE to grant recognition if it is satisfied that the institution making an application for the grant of recognition has fulfilled the necessary requirements laid down in the said section. Clauses (e) and (f) of Regulation 5, however, insisted the institution to obtain NOC from the State Government/Union Territory which was wholly outside the provisions of the Act. State Government/Union Territory was totally alien so far as the recognition was concerned and by insisting NOC from State Government / Union Territory, NCTE has created a parallel body unknown to the law and hence, clauses (e) and (f) of Regulation 5 were liable to be struck down declaring them to be ultra vires. 40 It was contended by the petitioners before this Court that there were no guidelines for the State Government / Union Territory for grant of NOC and it was open to such authority to grant or refuse NOC on wholly irrelevant considerations. The Court, however, referred to the affidavit filed by the State and perused the relevant Guidelines which ought to be considered for the grant of NOC and held that the State Government / Union Territory would confine to matters enumerated in those Guidelines. The Court observed: "A perusal of the guidelines would show that while considering an application for grant of an NOC the State Government or the Union Territory has to confine itself to the matters enumerate therein like assessed need for trained teachers, preference to such institutions which lay emphasis on preparation of teachers for subjects like Science. Mathematics, English etc, for which trained teachers are in short supply and institutions which propose to concern themselves with new and emerging specialties like computer education, use of electronic media etc. and also for specialty education for the disabled and vocational education etc. It also lays emphasis on establishment of institutions in tribal and hilly regions which find it difficult to get qualified and trained teachers and locations which have catchment area in terms of schools of different levels where student teachers can be exposed to demonstration lessons and can undertake practice teaching. Para 8 of the guidelines deals with financial resources, accommodation, library and other infrastructure of the institution which is desirous of starting a course of training and teacher education. Para 8 of the guidelines deals with financial resources, accommodation, library and other infrastructure of the institution which is desirous of starting a course of training and teacher education. The guidelines clearly pertain to the matters enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act which have to be taken into consideration by the Regional Committee while considering the application for granting recognition to an institution which wants to start a course for training in teacher education. The guidelines have also direct nexus to the object of the Act, namely planned and coordinated development to teacher education system and proper maintenance of norms and standards. It cannot, therefore, be urged that the power conferred on the State Government or Union Territory, while considering an application for grant of an NOC, is an arbitrary or unchannelled power. The State Government or the Union Territory has to necessarily confine itself to the guidelines issued by the Council while considering the application for grant of an NOC. In case the State Government does not take into consideration the relevant factors enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act and the guidelines issued by the Council or takes into consideration factors which are not relevant and rejects the application for grant of an NOC, it will be open to the institution concerned to challenge the same in accordance with law. But, that by itself, cannot be a ground to hold that the Regulations which require an NOC from the State Government or the Union Territory are ultra vires or invalid." 41. Though it was urged that blanket power had been conferred on NCTE and there was abdication of essential function by NCTE in favour of State Government / Union Territory, the contention was negatived observing that the function performed by the State Government / Union Territory was more in the nature of collection of data and material. Referring to Regulation 6 as amended in 2002, the Court negatived the contentions and observed: "Regulation 6(ii) of these Regulations provides that the endorsement of the State Government/Union Territory Administration in regard to issue of NOC will be considered by the Regional Committee while taking a decision on the application for recognition. Referring to Regulation 6 as amended in 2002, the Court negatived the contentions and observed: "Regulation 6(ii) of these Regulations provides that the endorsement of the State Government/Union Territory Administration in regard to issue of NOC will be considered by the Regional Committee while taking a decision on the application for recognition. This provision shows that even if the NOC is not granted by the concerned State Government or Union Territory and the same is refused, the entire matter will be examined by the Regional Committee while taking a decision on the application for recognition. Therefore, the grant or refusal of a NOC by the State Government or Union Territory is not conclusive or binding and the views expressed by the State Government will be considered by the Regional Committee while taking the decision on the application for grant of recognition. In view of these new Regulations the challenge raised to the validity of Regulations 5(e) and (f) has been further whittled down. The role of the State Government is certainly important for supplying the requisite data which is essential for formation of opinion by the Regional Committee while taking a decision under Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act. Therefore no exception can be taken to such a course of action." 42. The Court, however, held that the State Government must exercise power within "reasonable time". It was indicated that if the State Government would not take a decision within that period, it would defeat the right of the institution to have its application considered by the regional committee of NCTE. It was, therefore, proper for the Council to frame appropriate Regulation for fixing time limit within which a decision should be taken by the State Government on the application made by the institution for grant of NOC. In absence of such regulation and fixing of time limit, the Court held that such decision should be taken by the State Government / Union territory within "four months" failing which NOC would be deemed to have been granted. 65. It is true that during the pendency of St. John"" s Teachers Training Institute, NCTE framed regulations called the NCTE (Form of application for recognition, the time limit of submission of application, determination of norms and standards for recognition of teacher education programmes and permission to start new course or training) Regulations, 2002. 66. 65. It is true that during the pendency of St. John"" s Teachers Training Institute, NCTE framed regulations called the NCTE (Form of application for recognition, the time limit of submission of application, determination of norms and standards for recognition of teacher education programmes and permission to start new course or training) Regulations, 2002. 66. Regulation 6 required production of No Objection Certificate"" from the State Government/Union Territory. Clause (1) thereof read thus: 6. Requirement of No Objection Certificate from the State Government/U.T. Administration. (i) Application from every institution seeking recognition to start a course or training in teacher education or from an existing institution seeking permission to start a new course or training and/or increase in intake shall be accompanied by a No Objection Certification (NOC) from the State or Union Territory in which the institution is located. (ii) to (vii) # # # # # (emphasis supplied) 67. The above Regulations came into force from November 13, 2002 and they insisted that application should be accompanied by NOC from the State Government/Union Territory in which the institution is located. 68. In view of the fact, however, that according to us, the final authority lies with NCTE and we are supported in taking that view by various decisions of this Court, NCTE cannot be, deprived of its authority or power in taking an appropriate decision under the Act irrespective of absence of No Objection Certificate by the State Government/Union Territory. Absence or non-production of NOC by the institution, therefore, was immaterial and irrelevant so far as the power of NCTE is concerned. 18. Perusal of the above paras and other judgments cited by learned counsels for petitioners i.e. of the cases of Jaya Gokul and Adhiyaman (supra), it comes out that issue involved in those cases was different than the present matter. In those cases issue involved was in respect of authority of the State either to make State Legislation repugnant to Central Legislation and in respect of orders issued by the State contrary to the order of NCTE. In Jaya Gokul and Adhiyaman"" s cases (supra), the State Legislation was found to be repugnant to the Central Legislation and it being a case of technical or medical education, it was held that Central Legislation will occupy the field. Accordingly, Councils constituted under the Central Act would be having authority to govern those courses of the higher education. In Jaya Gokul and Adhiyaman"" s cases (supra), the State Legislation was found to be repugnant to the Central Legislation and it being a case of technical or medical education, it was held that Central Legislation will occupy the field. Accordingly, Councils constituted under the Central Act would be having authority to govern those courses of the higher education. In the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar (supra) contrary to the order of the NCTE, State Government refused to grant NOC, thus it was held that the State is having no authority to act contrary to the Central Legislation and recognition made by the Council created under the Act of 1993. 19. In the present case, facts are different, it is the NCTE which itself refused to grant recognition to the petitioner institutions for the reasons already given above and otherwise exists in the impugned order. Here State Legislation or State order is not in conflict with the Central Legislation or the order of NCTE, therefore, three judgments referred to above, has no application to the facts of this case rather judgment in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar (supra) holds that the domain of NCTE will remain in regard to the grant or refusal of recognition, thus in view of the above, aforesaid judgment supports the contentions raised by learned counsel for NCTE. 20. It would be material to refer judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of St. Johns (supra) wherein a challenge to the Regulation were made. The Regulation was providing requirement of NOC by the State or Union Territory where the institution is located. Averting to the provisions of the Regulations, the Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that challenge to the Regulations is not sustainable and the provision is intra vires. A reference of Guidelines of NCTE was also taken note of therein. Dealing with the facts of the aforesaid case, in Para 17, it was held that Regulation are not ultra-vires. Para 17 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference:- "17. A perusal of the guidelines would show that while considering an application for grant of a NOC the State Government or the Union Territory has to confine itself to the matters enumerated therein like assessed need for trained teachers, preference to such institutions which lay emphasis on preparation of teachers for subjects like Science, Mathematics, English etc. A perusal of the guidelines would show that while considering an application for grant of a NOC the State Government or the Union Territory has to confine itself to the matters enumerated therein like assessed need for trained teachers, preference to such institutions which lay emphasis on preparation of teachers for subjects like Science, Mathematics, English etc. for which trained teachers are in short supply and institutions which propose to concern themselves with new and emerging specialities like computer education, use of electronic media, etc. and also for speciality education for the disabled and vocational education etc. It also lays emphasis on establishment of institutions in tribal and hilly regions which find it difficult to get qualified and trained teachers and locations which have catchment area in terms of schools of different levels where student teachers can be exposed to demonstration lessons and can undertake practice teaching. Para 8 of the guidelines deals with financial resources, accommodation, library and other infrastructure of the institution which is desirous of starting a course of training and teacher education. The guidelines clearly pertain to the matters enumerated in subX"B,section (3) of Section 14 of the Act which have to be taken into consideration by the Regional Committee while considering the application for granting recognition to an institution which wants to start a course for training in teacher education. The guidelines have also direct nexus to the object of the Act namely, planned and coordinated development of teacher education system and proper maintenance of norms and standards. It cannot, therefore, be urged that the power conferred on the State Government or Union Territory, while considering an application for grant of a NOC, is an arbitrary or unchanelled power. The State Government or the Union Territory has to necessarily confine itself to the guidelines issued by the Council while considering the application for grant of a NOC. In case the State Government does not take into consideration the relevant factors enumerated in Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act and the guidelines issued by the Council or takes into consideration factors which are not relevant and rejects the application for grant of a NOC, it will be open to the institution concerned to challenge the same in accordance with law. But, that by itself, cannot be a ground to hold that the Regulations which require a NOC from the State Government or the Union Territory are ultra vires or invalid." 21. In para 18 & 19 of the aforesaid judgment, it was further held that grant or refusal of the NOC by the State Government is not conclusive or binding on NCTE but the view expressed by the State Government would be considered by the Regional Committee while taking decision on the application. Para 18 & 19 of the aforesaid judgment are also quoted hereunder for ready reference:- "18. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the impugned Regulations have the effect of conferring the power of consideration of the application for the grant of recognition under Section 14 of the Act upon the State Government, as in the event of rejection of a NOC the application is not even registered by the Council. This contention no longer survives on account of a subsequent development. Shri MN Krishnamani, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the Council has made fresh Regulations on November 13, 2002 which are known as the NCTE (Form of application for recognition, the time of submission of application, determination of norms and standards for recognition of teacher education programmes and permission to start new course or training) Regulations, 2002. Regulation 6 thereof reads as under: "6. Requirement of No Objection Certificate from the State Government/U.T. Administration -(i.) Application from every institution seeking recognition to start a course or training in teacher education or from an existing institution seeking permission to start a new course or training and/or increase in intake shall be accompanied by a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the State or Union Territory in which the institution is located. (ii) The endorsement of the State Government/UT Administration in regard to issue of No Objection Certificate (NOC) will be considered by the Regional Committee while taking a decision on the application for recognition. (iii) If the NOC issued by the State Government/UT Administration does not indicate the intake, it will be for the Regional Committee to determine the intake taking into account the infrastructural and instructional facilities available in the institution and other relevant provisions in the Norms and Standards applicable to the relevant teacher training programme. (iii) If the NOC issued by the State Government/UT Administration does not indicate the intake, it will be for the Regional Committee to determine the intake taking into account the infrastructural and instructional facilities available in the institution and other relevant provisions in the Norms and Standards applicable to the relevant teacher training programme. (iv) The NOC issued by the State Government/UT Administration will remain valid till such time the State Government/UT Administration withdraws/cancels it. (v) The NOC will be deemed to have lapsed if the institution fails to get recognition within three years from the date of its issue. (vi) Requirement of NOC shall not apply to Government Institutions. (vii) Requirement for NOC shall not apply to University Department for taking up innovative teacher education programme for a maximum intake of 50 (fifty only). The question as to whether a programme is - innovative will be decided by the concerned Regional Committee." 19. Regulation 6(ii) of these Regulations provides that the endorsement of the State Government/Union Territory Administration in regard to issue of NOC will be considered by the Regional Committee while taking a decision on the application for recognition. This provision shows that even if the NOC is not granted by the concerned State Government or Union Territory and the same is refused, the entire matter will be examined by the Regional Committee while taking a decision on the application for recognition. Therefore, the grant or refusal of a NOC by the State Government or Union Territory is not conclusive or binding and the views . expressed by the State Government will be considered by the Regional Committee while taking the decision on the application for grant of recognition. In view of these new Regulations the challenge raised to the validity of Regulations 5(e) and (f) has been further whittled down. The role of the State Government is certainly important for supplying the requisite data which is essential for formation of opinion by the Regional Committee while taking a decision under Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act. Therefore no exception can be taken to such a course of action." (emphasis laid)20. In view of the aforesaid decision, it becomes clear that State Government is having authority to send its recommendation in the form of information though same may not be binding on the NCTE, but NCTE can take an independent decision thereupon. Therefore no exception can be taken to such a course of action." (emphasis laid)20. In view of the aforesaid decision, it becomes clear that State Government is having authority to send its recommendation in the form of information though same may not be binding on the NCTE, but NCTE can take an independent decision thereupon. According to what extent State Government has a role is being explained in the aforesaid judgment. In the present case, argument on behalf of NCTE is that they have taken independent decision after considering recommendations made by the State Government. 21. In the case of Government of A.P. and another v. J.B. Educational Society and another reported in (2005) 3 SCC 212 , the issue directly came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to the State permission for opening of the institution in a particular area. While considering the aspect aforesaid as well as the issue as to whether there exists repugnancy in the State Act and the Central Act, the Court came to the conclusion that there exists no repugnancy in the A.P. Education Act with that of AICTE Act. In Paras 13 & 14, it was held that State can decide as to whether educational facilities are required in the area concerned or not. Paras 13 & 14 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted hereunder:- "13. It is in this background that the provisions contained in the two legislative enactments have to be scrutinized. The provisions of the AICTE Act are intended to improve technical education and the various authorities under the Act have been given exclusive responsibilities to coordinate and determine the standards of higher education. It is a general power given to evaluate, harmonise and secure proper relationship to any project of national importance. Such a coordinate action in higher education with proper standard is of paramount importance to national progress. Section 20 of the A.P. Act does not in any way encroach upon the powers of the authorities under the Central Act. Section 20 says that the competent authority shall, from time to time, conduct a survey to identify the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction notified through the local newspapers calling for applications from the educational agencies. Section 20 of the A.P. Act does not in any way encroach upon the powers of the authorities under the Central Act. Section 20 says that the competent authority shall, from time to time, conduct a survey to identify the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction notified through the local newspapers calling for applications from the educational agencies. Section 20(3) (a)(i) says that before permission is granted, the authority concerned must be satisfied that there is need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality. The State authorities alone can decide about the educational facilities and needs of the locality. If there are more colleges in a particular area, the State would not be justified in granting permission to one more college in that locality. Entry 25 of the Concurrent List gives power to the State Legislature to make laws regarding education, including technical education. Of course, this is subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I. Entry 66 of List I to which the legislative source is traced for the AICTE Act, deals with the general power of Parliament for coordination, determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical educational institutions and Entry 65 deals with the union agencies and institutions for professional, vocational and technical training, including the training of police officers, etc. The State has certainly the legislative competence to pass the legislation in respect of education including technical education and Section 20 of the Act is intended for general welfare of the citizens of the State and also in discharge of the constitutional duty enumerated under Article 41 of the Constitution. 14. The general survey in various fields of technical education contemplated under Section 10(1)(a) of the AICTE Act is not pertaining to the educational needs of any particular area in a State. It is a general supervisory survey to be conducted by the AICTE Council, for example, if any IIT is to be established in a particular region, a general survey could be conducted and the Council can very much conduct a survey regarding the location of that institution and collect data of all related matters. It is a general supervisory survey to be conducted by the AICTE Council, for example, if any IIT is to be established in a particular region, a general survey could be conducted and the Council can very much conduct a survey regarding the location of that institution and collect data of all related matters. But as regards whether a particular educational institution is to be established in a particular area in a State, the State alone would be competent to say as to where that institution should be established. Section 20 of the A.P. Act and Section 10 of the Central Act operate in different fields and we do not see any repugnancy between the two provisions." 22. Perusal of the aforesaid paras shows that if State has taken a stand that educational institution is not required in a particular area, then aforesaid aspect cannot be ignored looking to Entry 25 of the Concurrent List. The judgment aforesaid covers the present matter on facts as well as competence of the State for making recommendation. 23. In the case of Basic Education Board, U.P. v. Upendra Rai and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 432 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if a policy decision is made by the NCTE, then same is not open to judicial review unless it violates constitutional or statutory provisions. 24. In the case of Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh (supra), the issue as to whether excessive and disproportionate trained teachers then required and unemployment can be taken as a ground to issue direction to the institution not to admit students in the next academic year. The aforesaid judgment is prior to enactment of Act of 1993 but the law laid therein that consideration of the facts as given in this case in the form of information given by the State Government can be taken into consideration for a decision (see para 5). In this case, NCTE has taken such information as input, thus cannot be said to be irrelevant in view of the aforesaid judgment. Hence, even the facts of this case are supported by the judgment aforesaid. In this case, NCTE has taken such information as input, thus cannot be said to be irrelevant in view of the aforesaid judgment. Hence, even the facts of this case are supported by the judgment aforesaid. In view of the above, the first question and also the last question are answered against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents by holding that NCTE is a competent authority to refuse the recognition under the given circumstances and more specifically in the facts of this case and that decision is not contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar (supra). The decision of the competent authority cannot be called for judicial review on the fact as Council is an . expert body for the purpose of recognition. 25. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, it pertains to allegation of discrimination in the action of the NCTE for granting recognition to these institutions who filed application later than petitioner institutions. This is in respect of academic year 2008-2009. Learned counsel for NCTE has clarified the factual aspect and stated that those institutions could not remove the deficiencies, thus not granted recognition whereas institutions either removed the deficiencies or were not having any deficiency granted recognition, thus there exists no question of discrimination. The petitioner institutions failed to remove deficiencies within the time. It was also stated that now the Regulations provided a schedule by which the process has to be regulated. This is to avoid delay in start of the academic session and according to the Regulations, petitioner institutions are not entitled for grant of recognition for the academic year 2008-2009 more so when the aforesaid academic year is at the fag end. It is also stated that even counselling of next academic year 2009-2010 is under progress, thus prayer for recognition for the academic session 2008-2009 has now become infructuous with the lapse of time. 26. I have considered the aforesaid aspect and find that no relief can be granted to the institutions in regard to the academic year 2008-2009 as aforesaid session is at the fag end and looking to the further fact that counseling of the new session 2009-2010 is under process. So far as issue of discrimination, from the facts, I do not find that a case is made out. So far as issue of discrimination, from the facts, I do not find that a case is made out. So far as issue regarding grant of recognition to 13 institutions and judgment thereupon, firstly it is necessary to hold that even if NCTE has acted contrary to the Rules, then on the strength of their illegal action, the Court should not grant relief to others by perpetuating the illegality and giving direction contrary to the provisions of law. It has already been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that Court should not perpetuate the illegality, thus in view of the above, I am not inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioner institutions. Hence, for all the reasons given, question No. 2 is also answered against the petitioner institutions and in favour of the respondents. 27. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, it pertains to a claim of fundamental rights by the petitioner institutions as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsels argued the aforesaid issue in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar wherein according to the counsels, this issue was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 77. A look at Para 77 of the aforesaid judgment, it comes out that looking to the grant of recognition by the NCTE, State was held not to be competent to interfere with the said decision, however, it has no where held that even if NCTE passed an order denying recognition then also the petitioners would be having fundamental right to run their institutions. It is necessary to clarify that provisions of the Act of 1993 and Regulations made from time to time provides procedure for recognition which includes even denial of recognition. Those provisions have not been challenged in these writ petitions, thus contrary to the statutory provisions, no relief can be granted to the petitioner institutions rather if petitioner institutions were to claim their fundamental rights, at least they should have challenged the vires of the provisions which gives authority to NCTE to deny the recognition, however, no such challenge has been made and otherwise Article 19 (6) of the Constitution of India provides imposition of reasonable restriction which otherwise exists in view of the Legislation made by the Union Government. 28. 28. The issue regarding fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Modern School v. Union of India reported in (2004) 5 SCC 583 . In the aforesaid case, it was held that though education is an "occupation", thus it becomes a fundamental right to establish and run educational institutions but it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. In the present case, opening of the institution is required to be undertaken as per the process given under the Act of 1993 and Rules made thereunder. As per the restriction given therein, an institution cannot be opened without recommendation by the NCTE. Thus, looking to the provisions of Article 19(6) and the provisions of the NCTE Act and Rules made thereunder, it cannot be said that petitioners"" fundamental rights have been violate in the present matter. Hence, in view of the above also, answer to the last question is given against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents. 29. It is also necessary to deal with the fact that according to the petitioner institutions, they have incurred huge amount for creation of infrastructures and for maintaining the faculty. The aforesaid aspect supports the petitioner institutions to gain equity in their favour but equity cannot govern a provision of law rather only on the basis of the equity a judgment cannot be given contrary to the provisions of the law. This is more so when the petitioner institutions were knowing that even as per the Regulations, the State Government may give their recommendations and NCTE is having authority to take independent view thereupon, thus mere creation of the infrastructure never guarantees recognition of institution by the NCTE rather it remains subject matter of the scrutiny and also the authority of the NCTE in that regard, thus the argument of pertaining to equity so exists in favour of the petitioner could not find favour in view of the decision of question Nos.1 & 4 against the petitioner institutions. 30. In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any substance in this bunch of the writ petitions so preferred by the petitioner institutions, hence, all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 31. 30. In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any substance in this bunch of the writ petitions so preferred by the petitioner institutions, hence, all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 31. It is, however, observed that respondent - NCTE will take fresh decision for grant of recognition to petitioner institutions for the year 2010-2011 if they find that institution should be given recognition in the State of Rajasthan, then subject to fulfillment of conditions of the provision of law, petitioner institutions may be given priority for grant of recognition.Order accordingly. *******