Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 326 (CAL)

Gopsai Acinandan Sangha v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2009-04-23

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioners before me in this batch of writ petitions are institutions who have approached this Court, either by themselves or through their managing Committee seeking mandatory direction upon the West Bengal board of Primary Education to affiliate them for conducting Primary teachers Training course. The dispute in these matters are primarily between the petitioners and the West Bengal Primary Board of Education over grant of affiliation for operation primary teachers' training course (B. Ed.) by the individual institutions. Affidavit-in-Opposition has been filed by the Board only in W. P. No. 3613 (W) of 2009. However, arguments were advanced primarily on legal issues and by consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, these writ petitions were taken up for hearing at this stage only. 2. THE National Council of Teacher Education (N. C. T. E. in short), constituted under the provisions of The National Council For Teacher education Act, 1993 has already issued orders for recognition in their favour for conducting this course. Such orders for recognition were issued in response to applications made by or on behalf of the petitioners for the said purpose in terms of Section 14 of the said statute. I shall refer to this statute as the 1993 Act in the later part of this judgment. The 1993 Act was enacted by the Parliament to provide for establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieving planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country as also for regulation and proper maintenance and norms and standard in the teacher education system. This object of the Act appears from its preamble. The NCTE was constituted in pursuance of the provisions of the said enactment. 3. THE West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973 was amended in the year 2002 empowering the West Bengal Primary Board of Education (Board) to guide, supervise and control primary education including primary teachers' training. Under the provisions of the said Act, the Board was empowered to provide by regulations syllabus and the courses to be followed in the primary teachers training institutions. This Act also empowers the Board to award diplomas, certificates, prizes, scholarships in respect of any examination conducted under the said Act. Under the provisions of the said Act, the Board was empowered to provide by regulations syllabus and the courses to be followed in the primary teachers training institutions. This Act also empowers the Board to award diplomas, certificates, prizes, scholarships in respect of any examination conducted under the said Act. The Board is authorised to institute primary teachers' training examination after considering the recommendations of the examination committee constituted under the said Act and to make regulations on all aspects connected with such examination. Sub-section (ff) of Section 19 (1) of the said Act which I shall describe as the 1973 Act henceforth, confers power on the Board to grant or refuse recognition to primary teachers' training institute and to make regulations for such recognition. The Board has, with the approval of the State Government framed the West Bengal Board of Primary Education (Recognition of Primary Teachers' Training Institute) Regulations, 2002 in this regard. 4. THE 1993 Act is primarily concerned with laying down the norms and standards in the teacher education system, and the role of NCTE is largely confined to the aspect of grant of recognition to individual teachers' training institutions. On the aspect of conducting such course and holding of examinations, it is contemplated that these issues would be regulated by independent bodies, which have been defined as "examining Body" in section 2 (d) of the 1973 Act which stipulates:-"examining Body" means a University, agency or authority to which an institution is affiliated for conducting examination in teacher education qualification. " Individual institutions recognised by the NCTE thus are required to be affiliated with the appropriate "examining Body" for the purpose of holding examination and issuance of certificates or diplomas, as the case may be. 5. FOR the purpose of conducting courses and holding examinations for primary teachers' training, i.e. performing or discharging the duties of an "examining body", in West Bengal, the Board is the proper authority. Thus all the institutions are required to obtain affiliation of the Board, since it is the Board who are authorised to grant certificates etc; through a regular evaluation process. By a notification bearing No. 1039-SE (Pry),- 4p-14-14/04 dated 23rd October, 2008, the State Government has issued a declaration to the effect that the West Bengal Board of Primary Education established under the 1973 Act would be the examining body in terms of section 2 (d) of the 1993 Act. By a notification bearing No. 1039-SE (Pry),- 4p-14-14/04 dated 23rd October, 2008, the State Government has issued a declaration to the effect that the West Bengal Board of Primary Education established under the 1973 Act would be the examining body in terms of section 2 (d) of the 1993 Act. 6. A question had arisen as to whether the institutions imparting or intending to impart primary teachers' training upon being recognised by the Board in terms of the 1973 Act would at all require recognition from the NCTE. In a Public Interest Litigation, Tulsi Baksi and Anr. v. State of west Bengal and Ors., reported in 2008 (4) CHN 789 , an Hon'ble Division bench of this Court held that such recognition was necessary. In this case it was held:- "accordingly, we direct that unless these institutions are recognized, they shall not have any authority to admit any student in their institutions. It is clear from the facts that these institutions have acted in flagrant disregard of the provisions of the Act and rules. All these institutions are bound to be aware of the provisions of the N. C. T. E. Act and could not have merely on the basis of the affiliation granted by the Board admitted the poor students. We are aware that the students are now going to lose one year which is very precious in their young lives. But the law must prevail and, accordingly, we direct all these unrecognized institutions to return all the fees to each and every student. Before we part we also make clear those Institutions who are already recognized under the N. C. T. E. Act, there are no impediments for them to run their Institutions. We further direct the State Authorities to render all assistance to the said institutions". It is not in dispute that all the institutions on whose behalf these writ petitions have been filed have been recognised by the NCTE. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are unable to conduct the course by admitting students because of reluctance on the part of the Board to grant affiliation. 7. SUCH affiliation is being held up, it has been submitted by Mr. Sumit Panja, learned Advocate appearing for the Board, because the orders of the NCTE granting recognition to individual institutions have has not been published in the official gazette as yet. 7. SUCH affiliation is being held up, it has been submitted by Mr. Sumit Panja, learned Advocate appearing for the Board, because the orders of the NCTE granting recognition to individual institutions have has not been published in the official gazette as yet. There is requirement for publication in the official gazette every order for grant of or refusal of registration under the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the 1993 Act. 8. ON behalf of the petitioners, submissions have been advanced by Mr. K. K. Maitra, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. A. Chatterjee and Mr. P. S. Deb Barman, learned Advocates, Ms. Asha G. Gutgutia has appeared for NCTE in all these matters, and as I have already indicated, Mr. S. Panja learned Advocate represented the Board in the writ petitions. Several points have been argued by the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners in support of their claim for affiliation, but since there have been many overlapping submissions, I shall refer to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners in a composite manner instead of referring to the arguments of their learned Advocates individually. The petitioners' case is that once an order of recognition has been issued by the NCTE in favour of an institution, publication of the order of recognition in the official gazette is merely a ministerial act. Affiliation of the institution to the "examining body" cannot be held up till such publication is actually effected. It has been argued that the aspect of issuance of the orders granting recognition in the official gazette is not within the control of the petitioners or the NCTE since such publication is effected through an independent process. Learned Advocate for the NCTE submitted that so far as her clients are concerned, they have sent the orders granting recognition to the individual institutions to the authorities for publication in the official gazette. The contention of the petitioners is that upon being granted recognition by the NCTE, and once such order is communicated to the institutions, the examining body and other authorities, the petitioners have the right to be affiliated by the examining body for conducting the course for which they have been granted recognition. The examining body in such cases need not wait for publication of the order in the official gazette. The examining body in such cases need not wait for publication of the order in the official gazette. On this aspect, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Stafe of maharastra. v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and Ors., reported in 2006 (9) SCC 1 . In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-"in our opinion, the observations that the provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of the Maharashtra Universities Act are "null and void* could not be said to be correct. To us, it appears that what the High court wanted to convey was that the provisions of Sections 82 and 83 would not apply to an institution covered by the 1993 Act. As per the scheme of the Act, once recognition has been granted by NCTE under Section 14 (6) of the Act, every university ("examining body") is obliged to grant affiliation to such institution and Sections 82 and 83 of the University Act do not apply to such cases". 9. THE other authority which has been relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioners is a decision of this Court, in the case of gopsai A. Sangha. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in 2008 (3)CHN 578 . That decision was rendered when their prayer for affiliation of a recognised institution was being withheld by a university for conducting b. Ed, course. In fact, the same institution is also the writ petitioner in W. P. No. 3613 (W) of 2009, seeking affiliation of the Board for conducting primary teachers' training course. In that case (, this Court held:-"but in view of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case reported in 2006 (9) SCC 1 , I do not think the aforesaid statutory provisions could be construed in that manner. Once recognition is granted under the provisions of Section 14 (6) of the 1993 Act, in respect of such recognized institutions, the provisions of the First Statutes cannot apply vis-a-vis the subjects which has been examined and addressed to by the Council. In such a situation, the statute on which the University is relying on being the creature of a State legislation must make way for the 1993 Act. In such a situation, the statute on which the University is relying on being the creature of a State legislation must make way for the 1993 Act. This is the opinion of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Shimla Education Society and trust (supra), with which I respectfully agree". 10. MS. Gutgutia, learned Advocate appearing for the NCTE has largely supported the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners on this proposition of law. She has argued that once an order is communicated by the NCTE to the examining body, they are bound to pass the order of affiliation to such institution. Appearing for the Board, Mr. Panja submitted that in none of these decisions, the question of publication of the order of recognition in the official gazette was considered. The obligation or duty of an examining body to affiliate an institution after such institution is recognised by the NCTE is not in dispute in the present batch of writ petitions. This point is no more res Integra, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra mahavidyalaya and. Ors. (supra), and the decision of the Hon'ble Division bench of this Court in the case of Tulsi Bakshi (supra ). The other decision of this Court, to which I have referred to in the preceding paragraphs also is on the same issue. The case of the Board is that under the provisions of Section 14 (4) of the 1993 Act, publication of the order granting recognition in the Official Gazette is an essential precondition for such recognition to take effect. Till such publication is made, the examining body is not empowered to grant affiliation. On the aspect of necessity and importance of publication of an order in the Official Gazette, he has relied on three decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of I. T. C. Bhadrachalam Paper-boards v. Mandal Revenue Officer, reported in 1996 (6) SCC 634 , Union of India v. Ganesh Das Bhojraj, reported in 2000 (9)SCC 461 and Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors., 2007 (5) SCC 85 . 11. 11. HE has also argued that if the statute provides certain things to be done in a particular manner, there is no scope of deviation from the manner of performance mandated by the statute. The Court also cannot direct such deviation by issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other directive. The authorities relied on in support of this proposition are:- (1) Santosh Kumar Verma. v. State of Bihar, reported in 1997 (2) SCC 713 ; (2) Asim Mukhopadhyay v. Sourindra Nath Ray and Anr., reported in 2002 (4) CHN page 366. 12. SINCE the entire case of the Board is anchored on Section 14 (4)of the said Act, it would be necessary to revert to the provisions of Section 14 of the 1993 Act in its entirety. This section stipulates:- "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 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". The statutory scheme on the question of granting recognition, as it appears from a plain reading of the provisions of Section 14 of the act is that application for recognition is required to be made by an institution to the Regional Committee of the NCTE. The statutory scheme on the question of granting recognition, as it appears from a plain reading of the provisions of Section 14 of the act is that application for recognition is required to be made by an institution to the Regional Committee of the NCTE. Once the committee is satisfied that the institution meets the standard, laid down by the NCTE, it is to issue the order granting recognition subject to fulfillment of conditions as may be determined by Regulations framed in pursuance of the provisions of the 1993 Act. This is specified in Section 14 (3) (a) of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 14 deals with the manner of communication or the mode of dissemination of an order granting recognition to an institution. Two modes of communication have been prescribed. One is publication of the order in the official gazette. The other mode is direct intimation in writing for appropriate action to the institution, and to the concerned examining body, as also to the local authority or the State Government and the Central government. Under sub-section (6) of Section 14 of the Act, on receiving an order granting recognition to an institution, an examining body is required to grant affiliation to such institute. 13. SUBMISSION of Mr. Panja is that since under the provisions of section 14 (4) of the 1993 Act, in the sequence of arrangement of the modes of communication, the requirement to publish in the official gazette appears prior to the requirement to communicate the order in writing for appropriate action, the mandate of law is that the order should be published in the official gazette first. It is only after such publication, and communication thereafter as prescribed by the statute the order acquires its finality. Only thereafter the examining body is required to grant affiliation. 14. SUBMISSION of the petitioners, on the other hand has been that the two modes of publication or dissemination of an order granting recognition serves two independent purposes. The publication in the official gazette is meant to notify the general public the recognition status of such an institution, whereas communication of the order to an examining body is meant to activate them for grant of affiliation. Mr. The publication in the official gazette is meant to notify the general public the recognition status of such an institution, whereas communication of the order to an examining body is meant to activate them for grant of affiliation. Mr. Chatterjee relied on a decision of the Hon'bie Supreme Court in the case of Joint Director of mines Safety v. Tandur and Nayandgi Stones Quarries Pvt. Ltd., 1987 (3)SCC 208 and contended that in appropriate cases, the expression "and" can be used in a disjunctive manner, and in this case this conjunction should be construed in that manner. I do not think the expression "and" means "or" in Section 14 (4)of the 1993 Act. If I accept this interpretation, then the two modes of communication would have to be construed as alternatives, and compliance of either of these two modes would be sufficient. 15. IN my opinion, however, in Section 14 (4) of the 1993 Act, the conjunction "and" has not been employed by the legislature to connect both the modes of publication or dissemination of an order of recognition so as to make compliance of publication and communication in both these modes essential preconditions before an order of recognition attains finality. I also do not think that the sequence in which compliance of these two modes have been provided in sub-section (4) of Section 14 would have to be followed in the same sequence for an order of granting recognition to a primary teachers' training institute to acquire its finality. 16. AS would be evident from the arrangement or overall scheme of section 14 of the 1993 Act, N. C. T. E., upon being satisfied with the eligibility of an institution to obtain an order of recognition for conducting a course for teachers' training, is required to pass an order of recognition under section 14 (3) (a) of the said statute. After passing an order of recognition, such order is required to be published in the official gazette. A duty has also been cast upon the N. C. T. E. to communicate such order in writing to the institution, examining body, local authority or the State Government and the Central Government. After passing an order of recognition, such order is required to be published in the official gazette. A duty has also been cast upon the N. C. T. E. to communicate such order in writing to the institution, examining body, local authority or the State Government and the Central Government. In my opinion, the phrase "for appropriate action" has been used in Section 14 (4) in relation to "communication in writing", which is the prescribed mode for intimation of the order to the institution and the examining body and other authorities. From a plain reading of this provision, it is clear that while the law requires both these modes to be adhered to, they are to be performed independently. Upon receiving the communication, the examining body need not wait for the other mode of publication before taking decision on affiliation of the institution. The communication, as the statute mandates, is "for appropriate action" and the main action contemplated in the statute so far as the examining body is concerned is granting of affiliation. In my view, the process of publication in the official gazette can run parallel to the process of granting of affiliation. The initiation of the latter process is through the communication issued by the NCTE, and this process is not dependant on publication of the order in the official, gazette. Thus, the examining body is required to take appropriate action upon receiving the communication only. There is no requirement in the statute that they would have to be satisfied of publication of the order of recognition in the official gazette also. I hold so in view of specific provision of Section 14 (6) of the 1993 Act, which stipulates that an examining body shall, on receipt of a communication under Section 14 (4) of the statute grant affiliation where recognition has been granted. This is a mandatory duty cast upon the examining body. 17. THE importance of publication of an order of a statutory authority in the official gazette has been underlined in the three decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on which reliance was placed by Mr. Panja. These are the cases of ITC Bhadrachalam Paperboards (supra), Union of India v. Ganesh Das Bhojraj (supra) and Kunwar Pal Singh (supra). For a statutory order having impact on a large section of population, publication in the official gazette is undoubtedly the most important form of communication. Panja. These are the cases of ITC Bhadrachalam Paperboards (supra), Union of India v. Ganesh Das Bhojraj (supra) and Kunwar Pal Singh (supra). For a statutory order having impact on a large section of population, publication in the official gazette is undoubtedly the most important form of communication. But the manner in which an order shall be communicated or given effect to is provided in the concerned statute itself. It is not a legal requirement that every order which is issued by the governmental or statutory authorities should be published in the official gazette. 18. IN the case of ITC Bhadrachalam Paperboards (supra), the controversy was over applicability of an exemption notification issued under the Andhra Pradesh Non-Agricultural Land Assessment Act, 1963. The only mode of publication of such exemption order was publication in the andhra Pradesh Gazette. After such publication, orders granting exemption were required to be laid before the legislative Assembly. There was no other mode of publication prescribed. It is in that context the Hon'ble supreme Court found an order of exemption granted in a Government order (GO), which was not published in the official gazette nor issued under any enactment, not enforceable, in that case, dispute arose when a subsequent order, by which restrictions were sought to be imposed over such order granting exemption, was assailed in a writ petition. The second order specified that it was to be published in the extraordinary issue of the andhra Pradesh Gazette. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the plea of the petitioner in that case, holding that the Government is to act and can act only in accordance with the statute. In the case of Union of India v. Ganesh Das Bhojraj (supra), the dispute related to publication of an exemption notification under section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962. In section 25 (1) of the said Act, it has been specified:- "25. Power to grant exemption from duty.- (1) If the Central government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt generally either absolutely or subject to such conditions (to be fulfilled before or after clearance), as may be specified in the notification goods of any specified description from the whole or any part of duty of customs leviable thereon. " 19. THE third authority relied upon by Mr. " 19. THE third authority relied upon by Mr. Panja is the case of Kunwar pal Singh which relates to publication of a declaration in terms of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This section requires issuance of declaration that any particular land is needed for public purpose in an acquisition proceeding. Three modes of publication have been prescribed in sub-section 2 of Section 6 of the 1894 statute. These are:- (i) Publication in official gazette (ii) Publication in two leading newspapers circulation in the having locality in which the land is situated, of which at least one has to be in the regional language. (iii) Publication of substance of such declaration at convenient places in the locality. 20. IN all the three authorities publication in the official gazette were held to be mandatory. But as I have observed in the earlier part of this judgment, the manner in which an order is required to be published has to be ascertained from the provisions of the statute under which such an order is being issued. In the cases of ITC Bhadrachalam Paperboards (supra) and Ganesh Das Bhojraj (supra), publication in the official gazette were the basic mode prescribed, and in the former decision, the order was required to be laid before the State legislature as well after publication in the official gazette. In the latter case, the condition precedent for grant of exemption under the Customs Act, 1962 was publication of such exemption notification in the official gazette. In the case of Kunwar Pal Singh, the case related to acquisition of land, and a default clause was provided in 11-A of the Act. As per the said provision, the acquisition proceeding is to lapse in the event an award is not made within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration. Thus, publication in the official gazette assumed special significance in that case. 21. HOWEVER, none of these authorities lays down in absolute term that if one of the modes of publication of an order in a statute prescribes publication in the official gazette, till such publication is made, no further step can be taken in pursuance of the order in question. 21. HOWEVER, none of these authorities lays down in absolute term that if one of the modes of publication of an order in a statute prescribes publication in the official gazette, till such publication is made, no further step can be taken in pursuance of the order in question. The requirement of publication in the official gazette in an acquisition proceeding for land calls for strict compliance of the prescribed modes for publication through which such acquisition is to be effected. Such proceedings have serious implication on the rights of common citizens. But an order of recognition conferring right on an institution to pursue a course need not depend upon publication in the official gazette to become effective or acquire finality. Thus, for an order under the 1993 to take effect, the ratio of these authorities on the aspect of mandatory requirement of publication in the official gazette do not apply. Publication of an order of recognition under the 1993 Act in the official gazette is intended to help prospective students or other interested parties to ascertain whether an institution has been recognised or not. But pendency of publication in the official gazette should not postpone the decision of an examining body to grant affiliation in discharge of their duty to affiliate an institution under the provisions of Section 14 of the 1993 Act. The requirement for publication in the official gazette is only a supplementary requirement under the scheme of the Act, the dominant mode being communication of the order to the examining body for such order to acquire finality. That is why direct communication to such body has been prescribed, and it has been further provided that such communication is for appropriate action. In my view, "appropriate action" contemplated in the statute so far as an examining body is concerned, is that such body is to take decision on the question of affiliation of the institution. 22. THE case of Santosh Kumar Verma (supra) was cited by Mr. Panja in support of his submission that a writ in the nature of mandamus could not be issued to require performance of certain acts in violation of law. The case of Ashim Mukhopadhyay (supra), arising out of a contempt proceeding broadly lays down the same proposition though in a different context. Panja in support of his submission that a writ in the nature of mandamus could not be issued to require performance of certain acts in violation of law. The case of Ashim Mukhopadhyay (supra), arising out of a contempt proceeding broadly lays down the same proposition though in a different context. In this case it has been held that the Court cannot require enforcement of an order which could not be lawfully enforced. But as I have already held, the provisions of the 1993 Act does not make publication of an order of recognition in the official gazette an essential precondition for granting of affiliation to an institution. These two authorities do not assist the respondent's case. 23. THERE is another issue though not specifically urged merits consideration in these cases. The 2002 Amendment Act does not confer any power or authority on the Board to affiliate an institution for conducting primary teachers' training course. But the 1993 Act casts a duty on an examining body to grant affiliation in terms of Section 14 (6) thereof to a recognised institution. Since the Board has been declared to be an examining body by the State Government itself as per the notification dated 23rd October, 2008, power or jurisdiction of the board to grant affiliation flows from the provisions of the 1993 Act itself. So far as the 2002 amendment Act is concerned the power to grant affiliation should be held to be implicit in the power of the Board to grant recognition to a primary teachers' training institution. 24. THUS in my opinion since all the institutions involved in these writ petitions have been recognised by the NCTE for conducting primary teachers' training courses, and no other disqualification of these institutions have been brought to my notice which would make them ineligible for conducting such course, the Board cannot withhold affiliation to these institutions on the ground that the orders granting them recognition have not been published in the official gazette. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. 25. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. 25. THE Board is directed to grant affiliation to the individual institutions, on the basis of applications filed by them or on their behalf upon verification of the order of recognition communicated to the Board granting the individual institutions recognition for conducting primary teachers' training course, provided these institutions comply with other regular formalities, within a period of three weeks to enable the institutions to admit of the students for the ensuing academic session.