Judgment :- The writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition, challenging the order of the respondent-University dated 10. 2009, by which, the respondent has refused to consider the application of the petitioner for granting affiliation to start a new College of Education in the name and style of Billgates College of Education, Villupuram District to offer B.Ed. degree course for the academic year 2009-2010 on the ground that as per the inspection Committee report dated 29. 2009, certain deficiencies were pointed out, which are as follows:- "In the individual report the inspection commission members observed that 3057 books are available. But most of the books are not related to Teachers Education, Books related to Teachers Education are to be purchased. The Educational Technology Lab, Psychology Lab and Science labs are to be established separately. All the three labs lack sufficient equipments and apparatus. There is no provision for S.U.P.W. Activities, Music, The Physical Education equipment and play materials are not sufficient. Looking into the instructional and infrastructural facilities available there it is recommended that provisional affiliation need not be granted to Billgates College of Education, Villupuram District. Further, it is also pointed out that the Structural Soundness Certificate and Fire Prevention Certificate obtained from the competent authority have not been produced to the University." 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner-Institution was recognised by the Southern Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education from the academic year 2008-2009 with an annual intake of 100 students. The petitioner had submitted an application to NCTE to start B.Ed. course. After obtaining recognition from the NCTE, the petitioner has approached the respondent-University. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted all the required documents and requested the respondent to make an inspection for granting affiliation to commence the course for the academic year 2009-2010. Since the respondent has not taken any steps, the petitioner has sent a representation on 1. 2009, requesting for inspection. 4. Since there was no positive response from the respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P. No.13338 of 2009 for a direction against the respondent-University to dispose of the representations dated 1. 2009 and 7. 2009, which relate to grant of affiliation to the petitioners institution for the academic year 2009-2010. 2009, requesting for inspection. 4. Since there was no positive response from the respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P. No.13338 of 2009 for a direction against the respondent-University to dispose of the representations dated 1. 2009 and 7. 2009, which relate to grant of affiliation to the petitioners institution for the academic year 2009-2010. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 20.07.2009, with a direction to the respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 7. 2009 within a period of four weeks. As it is seen from the impugned order, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 20.07.2009, the respondent has passed the impugned order, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for affiliation for the reasons stated above. 5. It is not in dispute that before passing the impugned order, the respondent has not given any notice to the petitioner or calling upon the petitioner to rectify the deficiencies which are stated to have been detected by the inspection Committee as seen in the impugned order. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when once the NCTE has granted recognition, which was granted after the inspection and having been satisfied about the infrastructure facilities, it is automatic on the part of the respondent-University to grant affiliation, by relying upon various decisions. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would rely upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in RUKMANI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, REP. BY ITS CORRESPONDENT, KADAYANALLUR, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT & OTHERS ( (2008) 1 M.L.J. 1217 ), wherein it was held that even though it is true the NCTE being the authority under the Central Act granted recognition, it is open to the University to act as per the statute while granting affiliation and the University cannot be treated as rubber stamp for the purpose of approving whatever stated in the recognition order. However, it is held by the Full Bench that the University cannot impose onerous conditions than that of the NCTE under the NCTE Act. 7. However, it is held by the Full Bench that the University cannot impose onerous conditions than that of the NCTE under the NCTE Act. 7. Be that as it may, the fact that before passing the impugned order refusing to grant affiliation to the petitioners institution for the academic year 2009-2010, the respondent has not given any opportunity to the petitioner for the purpose of rectifying the mistake. It would be suffice the impugned order insofar as it relates to refusal to grant affiliation is set aside. Accordingly, the said portion of the impugned order is set aside. The other portion of the order dated 10. 2009, which relate to various inspection Committees reports regarding various deficiencies, shall be treated as show-cause notice to the petitioner. 8. It is open to the petitioner to give his reply to the said show-cause notice dated 10. 2009 and the records to be produced before the respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also entitled to make any further representation for the said show-cause notice. Thereafter, the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law regarding grant of affiliation within a period of two weeks thereafter. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would bring to the notice of this Court that as per the Government order, the last date for admission of students is 28th October, 2009 and the approval of such admission as stated by the Government is 310. 2009. Hence, it may not be possible for the University to consider the case of the petitioner for the academic year 2009-2010. It is true that such order has been passed by the Government. However, the case of the petitioner has to be taken as special case because of the reason that the impugned order was passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner for rectifying the mistake and inform the same to the University. Hence, for the delay beyond the period of 28th October, 2009, the respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner as a special case and pass appropriate orders regarding grant of affiliation as expeditiously as possible. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are closed. No costs.