Judgment : Lethargy on the part of the first respondent-University in considering Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner for granting affiliation to start a B.Ed college is subjected to challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner institution is a registered association and is stated as having more than 400 educational institutions all over the country. With the intention to start a college for teacher education, they submitted Ext.P1 application dated 210.2007 before the first respondent for affiliation, simultaneously satisfying the various requirements including remittance of the necessary application fee. The petitioner also submitted Ext. P2 letter of intent for grant of recognition/permission for the B.Ed course under clause 7(9) of the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). Despite filing the application supported with the testimonials, the University did not pursue any further action thereon, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the above Writ Petition. 3. The University has filed a counter affidavit stating that Ext.P2 was only a letter of intent and that it does not satisfy the unconditional recognition from the N.C.T.E., as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the N.C.T.E. Act/Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Act and Rules), which is a prerequisite for considering the application for affiliation. It is also pointed out that as evident from Ext.P2 , the petitioner is yet to satisfy the various requirements as specified thereunder which are to be complied with before issuing formal/permanent recognition and as such, no fault or lapse can be attributed on the part of the University. It is further pointed out by the University that despite the lapse as above, the Committee deputed by the Syndicate of the University/the appropriate authority had conducted an inspection when it was revealed that the petitioner was not having the requisite infrastructure including Furniture, Lab, Hostel etc., and further that no qualified teachers except two (having NET qualification) were available. It is further pointed out by the University that despite the lapse as above, the Committee deputed by the Syndicate of the University/the appropriate authority had conducted an inspection when it was revealed that the petitioner was not having the requisite infrastructure including Furniture, Lab, Hostel etc., and further that no qualified teachers except two (having NET qualification) were available. It has been asserted and assured in paragraph No.11 of the counter affidavit of the University that the petitioner can submit application for grant of affiliation on getting recognition from the N.C.T.E. and on getting recognition, if the institution fulfills all the conditions stipulated in the University Act, Statute and Regulations, the University would consider the application for affiliation; simultaneously adding in the next paragraph that the position in this regard has already been conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 27.08.2008. 4. It appears that the petitioner having realised the factual and legal position during the pendency of the above Writ Petition pursued further steps and satisfied the Apex Body, i.e., N.C.T.E., as to the compliance of the norms prescribed by the N.C.T.E. with regard to the infrastructure and also as to the appointment of qualified staff. On satisfying the requirement as specified under Regulation 7(9) and 7(11)of the Regulations, the fourth respondent/N.C.T.E. was pleased to issue Ext.P5 order dated 26.08.2008 granting recognition to the institution for conducting the B.Ed course with an intake of 100 students, subject to the condition specified therein. It is contended by the petitioner that the stand taken by the University declining to issue affiliation is per se wrong and misconceived. Reliance is also placed on the decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Vikram Sarabhai Educational Trust and B.Ed College vs. University of Calicut and others (I.L.R. 2008(2) Kerala 623 [F.B.]) to contend that, once recognition has been issued by the N.C.T.E., it is no more open to the University to deny affiliation referring to lack of sufficient infrastructure or on any other technical grounds and that the University shall grant affiliation as stipulated under Section 14(6) of the Act. Referring to the contentions of the University as to the requirements of the teaching staff ( to possess NET as a basic qualification), it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the teaching staff duly selected and appointed by the petitioner are qualified as per the norms prescribed by the 4th respondent and that no NET qualification is required, particularly when many of the staff appointed by the University in several of its institutions, as borne by Exts. P6 and P7 are not having the NET qualification. 5. Learned counsel for the University submits that the inspection conducted by the University and the counter affidavit already filed before this Court were with reference to Ext.P1 application, which obviously was a defective one, in so far as it was being processed on the basis of Ext.P2 issued by the N.C.T.E. which could never be treated as an order of final recognition, but was only a letter of intent as clearly stated therein. It has been added by the University in their counter affidavit, particularly in paragraph No.8, that the qualification prescribed for selection as a Lecturer in an affiliated college is a post graduate degree in the concerned subject with not less than 55% marks, with NET qualification and with such other qualifications/exemptions as prescribed. The stipulation with regard to the qualification as pointed out by the University is not rebutted by the petitioner in the reply affidavit filed by him. The learned counsel for the N.C.T.E. submits that the qualification prescribed by the N.C.T.E. under Regulation 1.b.(ii) for the post of Lecturer is only a Masters degree with M.Ed or Masters degree with B.Ed. (having 55% marks) with weightage for persons having Ph.D/M.Phil and also providing for special weightage for candidates having B.Ed degree of two years duration. The learned counsel for the N.C.T.E. submits that the qualification prescribed by the N.C.T.E. under Regulation 1.b.(ii) for the post of Lecturer is only a Masters degree with M.Ed or Masters degree with B.Ed. (having 55% marks) with weightage for persons having Ph.D/M.Phil and also providing for special weightage for candidates having B.Ed degree of two years duration. Learned counsel further adds that the prescription of such qualification will not bar the University from insisting such other qualification as provided under the Statute/Regulations as the case may be and that it is not in conflict with the Act/Rule/Regulation prescribed by the N .C.T.E. particularly when Ext.P5 granting final recognition itself takes care of such a situation as provided under clause 4 of the order, which is extracted below: "4.Further, the recognition is subject to fulfillment of all such other requirements as may be prescribed by other regulatory bodies like UGC, affiliating University/Body, the State Government etc., as applicable." 6. Learned counsel for the N.C.T.E. also refers to Regulation 4.4 with regard to the terms and conditions of service, to highlight the residual rights conferred on the appropriate authorities in this regard. The right of the University in this regard is further asserted by the learned counsel for the University, referring to the dictum laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Biju vs, University of Kerala [2008 (1) K.L.T. 707]. In any view of the matter, the salary payable to the academic staff of the institutions including part-time staff is under Regulation 4.4(d) of the Regulations, stipulating that it shall be in such scale of pay as may be prescribed by the UGC/University from time to time. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that there is no conflict between the stipulations issued by the University and the N.C.T.E. with regard to the qualification and as such, the matter has to be examined by the University in the light of the dictum laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Rural Education and Social Trust vs. University of Calicut ( 2007(2) K.L.T. 609) as explained by a Full Bench of this Court in ILR (2008(2) Kerala Series 623 (F.B.)(cited supra). 7. 7. With regard to the averment of the University in the counter affidavit that the petitioner does not have the infrastructure/facilities as pointed out in Ext.P8 inspection report, it is no more open to the University to sustain such plea; primarily in view of the satisfaction recorded by the N.C.T.E. as discernible from Ext. P5 and also by virtue of the specific observation made by this Court in the decision reported in ILR 2008(2) Kerala 623 (F.B.) (cited supra). The very same decision however envisages and asserts the rights of the University to consider satisfaction of other requirements as prescribed by the University under its Statute, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the rules/regulations prescribed by the N.C.T.E. This aspect, the learned counsel for the University points out, is yet to be examined by the University since Ext.P5 recognition was issued by the 4th respondent only during the pendency of the above Writ Petition and it did not form the subject matter of inspection, which led to issuance of Ext.P8 report (which was rather based on Ext. P1 application, supported by Ext. P2 letter of intent). It is true that the University does not have a case in Ext.P8 that there is any lapse or failure on the part of the petitioner with regard to the compliance of any such provisions stipulated by the University under the Statute/Regulations and the defects pointed out in Ext.P8 are only as to the lack of infrastructure prescribed by the N.C.T.E., which aspect however stands satisfied subsequently, leading to Ext.P5 final recognition issued by the N.C.T.E. 8. It is true, Ext.P1 application for affiliation to start the B.Ed college is for the year 2008-09; which academic year will come to an end within a shortwhile. As such, the University has to consider the said application in the light of Ext.P5 final recognition granted by the N.C.T.E. treating it as a valid application for the next academic year i.e., 2009-10 and pass final orders regarding grant of affiliation, in view of the observations made herein before. 9. In theabove facts and circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P1 application in the light of Ext.P5 recognition granted by the N.C.T.E. and in accordance with law. Final orders shall be passed within a period of one month. 9. In theabove facts and circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P1 application in the light of Ext.P5 recognition granted by the N.C.T.E. and in accordance with law. Final orders shall be passed within a period of one month. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the concerned respondent for pursuing further steps in this regard. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.