JUDGMENT Hon'ble ASOPA, J.—By these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the withholding of recognition of S.T.C./B.Ed. by the National Council for Teachers Education (in short 'N.C.T.E.'). 2. Out of the aforesaid writ petitions, in S.B.C.W.P.No.12050/2008 Neelkanth Education Society vs. N.C.T.E. special leave petition was filed against the interim order dated 27.11.2008 wherein the Supreme Court on 30.1.2009 requested the High Court to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible and it was directed that pending disposal of the same, the interim order passed by the High Court shall not be given effect to. 3. In view of the above, all the connected cases have been clubbed together and are being decided together. 4. By all these writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking appropriate writ, order or direction for release of the recognition order for the year 2008-2009 which was withheld by the respondent N.C.T.E. vide its meeting dated 20-21st September, 2008 on the ground of some objections of minor nature whereas recognition orders were issued in respect of 80 colleges. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of mandamus to release the recognition order. 5. It is also pertinent to mention here that on 24.10.2008 when a submission was made by the counsel for the N.C.T.E. that the next meeting is scheduled to be held on 31.10.2008, interim orders were passed to allow the petitioners for participation in the counselling on provisional basis subject to the decision of the writ petition and the cases of the petitioners were directed to be considered even after 31.10.2008 from the waiting list in case approval is granted by the N.C.T.E. 6. It is further relevant to mention here that in one of the writ petitions – SBCWP No.11699/2008 Shri Ana Sagar STC College vs. Union of India and others, there was direction of the Delhi High Court to try to dispose of the application by 7.9.2008 but the order was not issued even after the meeting dated 20-21st September, 2008 although recognition for STC was granted to the 80 colleges. 7. The leading facts are taken from SBCWP No.11699/2008 Shri Ana Sagar STC College vs. Union of India and others wherein there are some additional facts of Delhi High Court judgment dated 1.8.2008 in W.P.(C) No.5252/2008 Shri Aanasagar STC College vs. N.C.T.E. 8. The petitioner Institution was granted recognition for STC for the academic session 2007-2008 vide order dated 12.10.2007. 7. The leading facts are taken from SBCWP No.11699/2008 Shri Ana Sagar STC College vs. Union of India and others wherein there are some additional facts of Delhi High Court judgment dated 1.8.2008 in W.P.(C) No.5252/2008 Shri Aanasagar STC College vs. N.C.T.E. 8. The petitioner Institution was granted recognition for STC for the academic session 2007-2008 vide order dated 12.10.2007. On 19.2.2008, the petitioner applied for recognition of the additional intake of students for STC. When the recognition was not granted, the petitioner Institution filed Writ Petition No.5252/2008 before the Delhi High Court and the respondents were directed to try to dispose of the application by 7.9.2008 so that the academic session may be started. On 8.8.2008, the petitioner Institution submitted representation for grant of recognition. On 5.9.2008, the letter of intent seeking consent from the petitioner Institution for inspection was issued and the respondents sought certain information regarding approval as to the plans, FDR, affidavit and details of the website along with mandatory disclosure form. On 8.9.2008, a letter was issued by the respondents to carry out inspection which was carried out. The matter of the petitioner Institution was placed in the 132nd meeting of the N.R.C. (Northern Regional Committee). After inspection, the orders granting approval to about 80 colleges were issued under Regulation No.7(9) and 7(11) of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 (in short `the Regulations of 2007'). Although the petitioner Institution fulfilled all the requirements but its name was not mentioned in the list of 80 colleges which was published on Internet. On enquiry, the petitioner Institution came to know that although recognition was granted but the formal orders were withheld. Thereafter, notice of demand for justice was given but no heed was paid and the petitioner Institutions were discriminated. 9. The writ petition was filed on 20.10.2008 and on 22.10.2008, the notices were given Dasti. Subsequently, counsel appeared for the parties on 24.10.2008 and it was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner Institution that the objections of minor nature regarding submission of affidavit on Rs.100/- stamp paper and similar nature were raised which were also fulfilled, but till today no approval has been communicated with the result, the petitioner Institution will not be able to take students from the counselling commencing from 31.10.2008. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid interim order was passed on 24.10.2008 10. At this stage, an additional affidavit dated 10.11.2008 was filed by the counsel for the petitioner Institution in SBCWP No.11699/2008 Shri Ana Sagar STC College referring in paras 4 and 5, the decision of the N.C.T.E. in the meeting dated 31.10.2008 which is as under: “4. That it is submitted that in the meeting dated 31.10.2008, the case of the petitioner was considered and it was decided by the committee that the recognition order be issued to the petitioner immediately for the academic session 2008-09. 5. That the petitioner has been informed that the decision to issue the recognition order for academic session 2008-09 has been taken in favour of the petitioner and the committee has decided as under: “In compliance to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in Writ petition No.12050/2008, 12048/2008, 16699/2008, 11700/2008, 11701/2008, in the matter of Neelkanth Education Society, Varsha Education Society, Shri Ana Sagar STC College, Kota, Banwar Kanwar Sujan Shiksha Mahavidyalaya and Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan, Distt. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan, the cases hereby cleared and decided as, where 7(11) are there the recognition order be issued immediately for academic session 2008-09 and where 7(9) are there as soon as the required documents are submitted the 7(11) be issued for the academic session 2008-09” 11. The respondents have filed reply on 14.11.2008 only in SBCWP No. 12048/2008 Varsha Education Society vs. N.C.T.E. and submitted therein that the N.C.T.E. has promulgated the Regulations, 2007 vide notification dated 27.11.2007 which came into force w.e.f. 10.12.2007 with the publication in the gazette and further submitted that on 11.9.2008, the petitioner Institution was inspected by the expert who submitted report on 15.9.2008 and the matter of recognition to the petitioner Institution was placed in the 132nd meeting held on 20-21.9.2008. It transpired that vide notification dated 1.7.2008 Clause 5(4) and 5(5) of the Regulations, 2007 have been amended and as per the said amended Regulations, recognition cannot be granted to the petitioner Institution for the academic session 2008-2009 as inspection of the petitioner Institution was carried out after 31.8.2008. It is also mentioned in the reply that the recognition cannot be claimed as a matter of right but the said reply is silent about the proceeding dated 31.10.2008. 12. It is also mentioned in the reply that the recognition cannot be claimed as a matter of right but the said reply is silent about the proceeding dated 31.10.2008. 12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, on 18.11.2008, the counsel for the respondent NCTE was given time to file counter affidavit to the additional affidavit more particularly to para 5 of the additional affidavit wherein the order of grant of recognition in compliance to the interim order dated 14.10.2008 has been mentioned. 13. On 21.11.2008, Mr. Pareek brought to the notice of this Court interim order of the Supreme Court dated 26.9.2008 arising out of the same set of litigation decided by the Delhi High Court on 25.7.2008 which has been relied while passing the order dated 1.8.2008 according to which, “until further orders, it is directed that if pursuant to the impugned order recognition has not been granted as yet, the same shall not be granted” but no specific answer was given as to what happened to the order of the Delhi High Court dated 1.8.2008 which is on record as Annexure-1, therefore, time was granted to both the counsel to verify whether any special leave petition has been filed against the decision dated 1.8.2008 in Writ Petition No.5252/2008 and if filed, then the present position be also ascertained. The date of the order passed by the Delhi High Court has been wrongly typed in the order sheet as `5.8.2008' whereas in fact it is `1.8.2008'. 14. On 27.11.2008, counsel for the petitioner Institution brought to the notice of this Court that although SLP was filed against the order dated 1.8.2008 but on 24.10.2008 the same was withdrawn by the respondent with liberty to file appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. In such circumstances, the following interim order was passed on 27.11.2008 in SBCWP No.11699/2008 Shri Ana Sagar STC College and another vs. Union of India and others. Similar orders were passed in other connected writ petitions – SBCWP No.12050/2008, 12048/2008, 11700/2008 and 11701/2008. “....... In view of the above, the respondents are directed to issue approval letter (sanction) in compliance to the Meeting dated 31st October, 2008 and further the other respondents are directed to allot the students in respect of the seats, which have been approved by NCTE regarding STC Course, as per said approval from the waiting list.” 15. “....... In view of the above, the respondents are directed to issue approval letter (sanction) in compliance to the Meeting dated 31st October, 2008 and further the other respondents are directed to allot the students in respect of the seats, which have been approved by NCTE regarding STC Course, as per said approval from the waiting list.” 15. Against the said order dated 27.11.2008, SLP was filed and the Supreme Court passed order for hearing the writ petitions on 27.1.2009. The said order of the Supreme Court dated 27.1.2009 was produced before this Court and the hearing of the case was started on 30.1.2009 but the respondent still insisted the fact that the petitioner Institution is not entitled to recognition as the inspection of the petitioner Institution was carried out after 31.8.2008 i.e. the cut off date fixed by the amended Regulations,2007. 16. The three detailed orders dated 2.2.2009, 6.2.2009 and 20.2.2009 passed by this Court on taking note of all the aforesaid facts have some relevant bearing on the controversy in issue. The aforesaid three orders are as under: “2.2.2009 Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.11699/2008 Shri Anasgar STC College vs. Union of India and others and other connected writ petitions submit that this Court has taken note of the fact in the order of this Court dated 24.10.2008 that in 132nd meeting of the N.C.T.E. held on 20-21st September, 2008, objection of minor nature regarding submission of affidavit on Rs.100/- stamp paper or of similar nature were raised which were also fulfilled later on but till today, no order of approval has been communicated with the result that the petitioners will not be able to take students from the counselling commencing from 31st October, 2008. On the same day, Mr. Sanjay Pareek, appearing for the respondents No.3,4 and 5, office bearers of the N.C.T.E. submitted that the next meeting was scheduled to be held on 31.10.2008. Subsequently, on 18.11.2008, the petitioner filed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no.11699/2008 an additional affidavit wherein the decision of the approval taken by the N.C.T.E. in its meeting held on 31.10.2008 in respect of the petitioners Institutions has been reproduced in para No.5. Therefore, Mr. Sanjay Pareek sought time to file counter affidavit to the said additional affidavit, more particularly, to para 5 of the additional affidavit, but no counter affidavit was filed. Therefore, Mr. Sanjay Pareek sought time to file counter affidavit to the said additional affidavit, more particularly, to para 5 of the additional affidavit, but no counter affidavit was filed. On 21.11.2008, another issue was raised by Mr. Sanjay Pareek that in same set of litigation in Writ Petition No.1119/2008 decided by the Delhi High Court on 25.7.2008 the Supreme Court has issued interim orders on 26.9.2008 to the effect that “until further orders, it is directed that if pursuant to the impugned order recognition has not been granted as yet, the same shall not be granted” but the same was not brought to the notice of the Court on 24.10.2008, therefore, one week's time was granted to the parties whether any Special Leave Petition has been filed against the Delhi High Court judgment dated 1.8.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.5252/2008. On 27.11.2008, Mr. Mehta brought to the notice of the Court that Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25456/2008 (NCTE vs. Shri Anasagar STC College) was filed before the Supreme Court and vide order dated 24.10.2008, the same has been allowed to be withdrawn after some arguments with liberty to file appeal before the High Court but no appeal has been filed before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court against the order dated 1.8.2008. In the aforesaid cases, interim orders were passed by this Court on 27.11.2008 directing the respondent-NCTE to grant approval(sanction) in compliance of the meeting dated 31.10.2008 and further directed the other respondents to allot students in respect of the seats which have been approved by the NCTE. Out of the aforesaid writ petitions, in writ petition no.12050/2008, on filing of the copy of the order passed in the special leave petition pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court dated 27.1.2009 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.930/2009 and connected special leave petitions arising out of the interim order dated 27.11.2008, this Court passed the following order on 30.1.2009 and heard the arguments in part :- “In this case and other connected cases, N.C.T.E. has filed Special Leave Petitions against the respective orders and while disposing of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.930/2009 National Council for Teacher Edu. & Anr. vs. Dhattarwal Edu. Society (Regd.) & ors. & Anr. vs. Dhattarwal Edu. Society (Regd.) & ors. and other connected Special Leave Petitions, the Supreme Court has passed the following order on 27.1.2009: “Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in these petitions stated that they shall not press for implementation of the interim orders passed by the High Court during the pendency of the writ petitions, which have been directed to be listed on 30th January, 2009. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners stated that his clients undertake not to take adjournment in the writ petitions, which have been fixed for 30th January, 2009. In view of the stand taken on behalf of the parties, the High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petitions as expeditiously as possible and it is directed that pending disposal of the same, interim order passed by the High Court shall not be given effect to. With the aforesaid directions, the special leave petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.” Today, when the case was taken up, during the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the respondent Union of India has not been served. Mr. Alok Sharma submits that copy of the writ petition for the Union of India has already been given to Mr. Kamlakar Sharma. Thus, service is complete. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma is prepared to argue the case. Arguments heard in part. List on 2.2.2009 for further arguments after showing name of Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, counsel for the Union of India, in the cause list.” The similar type of order to the effect of service and argument was passed in other connected writ petitions. Mr. Sanjay Pareek submits that he is prepared to file counter additional affidavit and he will also apprise the Court about the fact whether any appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court against the judgment dated 1.8.2008 or not and if filed, then with what result, and further, he will also file copy of the decision taken in the meetings held on 20/21.9.2008 and 31.10.2008 in respect of the petitioners-institutions. The counsel for the petitioners reassert that the cut-off date for recognition/permission to start Teacher Training Course for the current academic session i.e.2008-09 fixed as 31.8.2008, shall not be applicable as the N.C.T.E. granted recognition to 80 colleges in its meeting held on 20/21.9.2008 but not to petitioners-institutions resulting into discrimination. The counsel for the petitioners reassert that the cut-off date for recognition/permission to start Teacher Training Course for the current academic session i.e.2008-09 fixed as 31.8.2008, shall not be applicable as the N.C.T.E. granted recognition to 80 colleges in its meeting held on 20/21.9.2008 but not to petitioners-institutions resulting into discrimination. Otherwise also, the same has become arbitrary on consideration of the facts and circumstances narrated in the writ petition and mentioned hereinabove. The counsel for the NCTE submits that they are bound by the said notification dated 1.7.2008 whereby clauses 5(4) and 5(5) of the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 have been amended and the cut-off date for recognition for the academic session 2008-09 was fixed as 31.8.2008. List on 3.2.2009 for further arguments. The photo copy of this order be placed in each file.” Order dated 6.2.2009 “During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioners submits that they have not challenged the relaxation letter dated 25th of September 2008 (Annexure-R/7) along with replies whereby in direction No.2 was that NCTE Headquarter Letter dated 16th September 2008 clarified that cases where inspection have been completed by 31st of August 2008 and which could not be considered by NRC due to paucity of time (and were deferred) may be given recognition from 2008-09. It is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioners that the 80 colleges were granted recognition by the N.C.T.E. in its 132nd Meeting dated 20-21 September, 2008 and the date of inspection has not been shown in the attach list of Institution considered by the NRC in its aforesaid 132nd Meeting. In such circumstances, I deem it proper to direct the respondents to furnish the list of the 80 colleges along with date of receipt of application, completion of formalities of application, the date of inspection etc. The petitioners are also at liberty to file the combined list in all these cases with regard to their application, date of completion of formalities and then first request made by them for inspection as well as the inspection carried out before the NCTE. The petitioners are also at liberty to file the combined list in all these cases with regard to their application, date of completion of formalities and then first request made by them for inspection as well as the inspection carried out before the NCTE. Put up for further arguments on 11.02.2009.” Order dated 20.2.2009 “Along with the affidavit filed by the NCTE in compliance to the order dated 6.2.2009, two documents (Anx.R-10 and Anx.R-11) have been filed but in the entire affidavit, it has not been made clear whether the recognition has been granted to the Colleges mentioned in Annexure R-10. Mr. S.M. Mehta, appearing for the petitioner institutions along with Mr. Alok Sharma has filed a list wherein he has referred some of the Colleges whose inspection was carried out after 31.8.2008 and they have been granted recognition. Counsel for the N.C.T.E. is directed to file specific affidavit on the issue whether the recognition was granted to the Colleges whose names are mentioned in Annexure R-10 and that in the list of colleges submitted by counsel for the petitioner, no inspection was carried out after 31.8.2008 and further recognition was granted. Put up on 25.2.2009 along with connected cases.” 17. Submission of counsel for the petitioner Institutions is that the petitioner Institutions are similarly situated to 80 institutions to whom the recognition was granted in the meeting dated 20-21.9.2008 and cases of some of the petitioner Institutions are on better footing than those institutions, on account of filing applications on earlier point of time but still the petitioner Institutions have been discriminated on the ground of inspection being carried out after 31.8.2008. Counsel further submit that out of the 80 institutions, there were thirteen institutions wherein the inspection was carried out after 31.8.2008 but still those institutions have been granted recognition and further the students have been admitted and studies in the respective institutions are going on. Counsel further submit that out of the 80 institutions, there were thirteen institutions wherein the inspection was carried out after 31.8.2008 but still those institutions have been granted recognition and further the students have been admitted and studies in the respective institutions are going on. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner Institutions that fixation of the date 31.8.2008 is a fortuitous circumstances as to carry out inspection even after completion of the formalities is in the hand of the respondents or availability of the members of the inspection team but anyhow, inspection of their institutions was completed before 20-21/9/2008, therefore, the date of meeting is crucial for the purpose of deciding the issue of recognition and further, there is no justification to withhold the recognition order on minor deficiency like undertaking on Rs.100/- stamp paper or other minor objection of similar nature. It was also permissible for the respondents to grant provisional recognition in such type of cases so that the Institutions may participate in the counselling which was again started on 31.10.2008 and ended on 15.1.2009. Lastly, it was submitted on the basis of the aforesaid facts that the impugned orders are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on account of treating the petitioner Institutions differently at least from the thirteen Institutions whose cases were at par with the petitioners. 18. Counsel for the respondents initially contended that as per Annexure R-7 dated 25.9.2008, the date 31.8.2008 has been fixed as the cut off date of inspection for the purpose of grant of recognition but when the respondents were confronted that thirteen Institutions have been granted recognition, the counsel submitted that although illegality has been committed by them but the same cannot be allowed to be perpetuated by granting recognition to the petitioner Institutions. 19. Ultimately, the arguments were concluded on 25.2.2009 when the respondents admitted that they have granted recognition to the thirteen Institutions whose inspection was carried out after 31.8.2008. The list of the aforesaid thirteen colleges whose inspection was carried out after 31.8.2008 and recognition has been granted, is mentioned in para 4 of the additional affidavit dated 25.2.2009 filed by the N.C.T.E. However, the respondents have submitted that the recognition has been granted to the aforesaid Institutions as per the Delhi High Court order dated 1.8.2008 without specifying number and title of the writ petition. Paras 4 and 5 of the additional affidavit dated 25.2.2009 filed by the N.C.T.E. are as under: “4. It is submitted that no recognition has yet been granted to the colleges mentioned in Annexure R-10. So far as following colleges are concerned, recognition was granted in the month of September, 2008 for the session 2008-2009:- S. No. File No. Name of Institution Date of inspection Date of recognition 1. HR-1706 Kinder Kin College of Education, Haryana 9.9.2008 15.9.2008 2. HR-1748 Sivalik College of Education, Haryana 9.9.2008 15.9.2008 3. HR-1704 GDR College of Education, Haryana 9.9.2008 15.9.2008 4. HR-1746 Ch.Matu Ram College of Education, Haryana 9.9.2008 15.9.2008 5. HR-1747 Gyan BhartiSikshi Samiti, Harayana 8.9.2008 15.9.2008 6. HR-1744 Budha College of Education, Haryana 8.9.2008 15.9.2008 7. HR-1750 Ch.R.R.Memorial College of Education, Haryana 6.9.2008 15.9.2008 8. HR-1745 Maharaja Agrasain College of Education, Haryana 5.9.2008 15.9.2008 9. HR-1669 Dharam College Education, Haryana 9.9.2008 15.9.2008 10. HR-1751 Mahabir College of Educa-tion for Women, Haryana 10.9.2008 15.9.2008 11. HR-1705 Rao Mohan Singh College of Education 10.9.2008 15.9.2008 12. UP-3032 Abhinav Sewa Sansthan Mahavidyalaya, Kanpur (UP) 10.9.2008 25.9.2008 13. RJ-2148 Ganesh College of Education, Jhunjhunu 10.9.2008 19.9.2008 5. That the recognition to the aforesaid colleges were granted in compliance of directions given by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The operative part of directions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court is reproduced as under: “Counsel for the petitioners points out that in case the recognition is not granted by 16.9.2008, the petitioner would not be in a position to admit students in the current academic session 2008-09. The petitioners undertakes that from their side they would cooperate with the respondent and there would be no delay in fulfillment of whatever requirements the petitioners have meet. In case there is no delay on the part of the petitioners individually the respondents would try to dispose of the application by 07.09.2008 so that they are able to commence the course with enhanced intake from the academic session 2008-09 in the event of the approval being granted.” 20. In case there is no delay on the part of the petitioners individually the respondents would try to dispose of the application by 07.09.2008 so that they are able to commence the course with enhanced intake from the academic session 2008-09 in the event of the approval being granted.” 20. The N.C.T.E. has not given the date of order of the Delhi High Court but there is reference of the dates 16.9.2008/7.9.2008 and in case of Shri Aanasagar STC College directions were issued in these cases by this Court directions were issued also on 24.10.2008 and in the meeting dated 31.10.2008 recognition was granted, therefore, the entire controversy is required to be adjudicated with reference to 20-21/9/2008 or 31.10.2008. 21. In Bright Future Teacher Training vs. State (SBCWP No.13038/2008 and other connected writ petitions decided on 12.12.2008 by this Court, the controversy was with regard to the non-grant of No Objection by the State Government to the B.Ed. Colleges to whom recognition was granted by the N.C.T.E. In the said case, the issue of completion of 180 teaching days was also considered for the academic session 2008-2009 and has been summarised and final directions were issued from pages 31 to 36 of the judgment, which is as under: “(30).....In these writ petitions, the matter is being considered on merit for the current session 2008-2009 for the aforesaid reasons which are summarized as under: (i) The State Govt. deliberately kept the applications for no objection pending and subsequently even after the judgment of this Court delivered during the process of last counselling, rejected the same with pre-determined mind without considering the fact that it was permissible for the State Government to postpone the counselling for few days or to hold new counselling immediately subsequent thereto. (ii) The State Government was acting as an appellate authority over the recognition granted by the NCTE and also did not consult the University for the purpose of extension of the academic session 2008-2009 as well as completion of 180 teaching days before the examination. (ii) The State Government was acting as an appellate authority over the recognition granted by the NCTE and also did not consult the University for the purpose of extension of the academic session 2008-2009 as well as completion of 180 teaching days before the examination. (iii) As regards minimum eligibility, the PTET was held to short list 3 lacs candidates for admission for few thousand seats and when 85000 candidates have been declared eligible in the PTET wherein there is no minimum qualifying marks as per Ordinance 320 and 322 of the University of Rajasthan and past practice of completion of 180 teaching days before the examinations brought to the notice of this Court, therefore, the minimum eligibility of passing Graduation with specified subjects fixed under Ordinance 320 and 322 of the University of Rajasthan would be relevant criteria for admission. In case the students are lesser in number than the available seats, then there was no need of holding the P.T.E.T. Therefore, from all angles, the eligibility clause Under Ord.320 and 322 is relevant for admission in case of availability of the candidates declared eligible in the P.T.E.T. by the University even below 30% marks as purpose of the same is short listing the students. (iv) The University was not consulted for extending start of the academic calendar which was also necessary for the on-going counselling from 1.11.2008 and completed on 14.11.2008 as the academic session was started from 26.9.2008 and now the University is considering for extension of the same. (emphasis supplied) (v) In the present cases, 180 teaching days can be completed for the academic session 2008-2009 by holding extra classes on holidays, over time classes on working days by counting one teaching day as two teaching days or by shortening the summer vacations in order to ensure the examinations to be held immediately thereafter, which is the past practice of the University also to meet out such contingency. (31) In view of the above, the contentions of the petitioners which are supported by the provisions of law, settled legal position of the Supreme Court judgment in State of Maharashtra (supra) followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court as discussed above, as also the past practice of the University, have force and the contentions of the respondent State of Rajasthan, have no force. (32) For the reasons mentioned here-in-above, all the aforesaid writ petitions are allowed and the respective impugned orders dated 7/10.11.2008 are quashed and set aside and the following directions are issued:- (i) The State Government is directed to fill up all the sanctioned seats, either sanction is for fresh seats or additional intake, in the petitioner private B.Ed. Colleges and other similarly situate colleges in whose cases writ petitions were filed earlier, this Court passed final orders before 14.11.2008 i.e. the last date for reporting for admission as per the last counselling held by the Govt.,by holding counselling in the week starting from 15.12.2008. (ii) On failure to hold the counselling by the State up to 22.12.2008, all the private colleges are free to form a federation and hold counselling on merit of the eligible candidates qualified in the P.T.E.T.2008. The private colleges are also directed to complete the admission process by 31.12.2008. (emphasis supplied) (iii) The private B.Ed. colleges may make a request to the University of Rajasthan/University of Kota to allow them to complete 180 days, either by holding extra classes on holidays or over time classes on teaching days and further counting one teaching day as two teaching days or by shortening the summer vacations in order to ensure that the examinations are conducted before the start of the academic session 2009-2010. 22. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties and their submissions referred in the order sheets reproduced hereinabove, the following crucial questions arise for determination: (i) Whether once the respondents have granted recognition to the thirteen Institutions whose inspection has been carried out after 31.8.2008 then, it is permissible for the respondents to justify denial of the recognition to other Institutions on the ground that their inspections were carried out after 31.8.2008 i.e. the cut off date? (ii) Whether the respondents are justified in making lame submission in the last additional affidavit dated 25.2.2009 that the NRC Jaipur has committed serious irregularities and therefore, the NRC has been terminated vide notification dated 13.2.2009 and new Committee has been constituted vide notification dated 17.2.2009 but no action has been taken/proposed in the affidavit against the 13 institutions in whose cases inspection was carried out after 31.8.2008 and recognition was granted in the 132nd meeting dated 20-21/9/2008? (iii) Whether the respondents who have not withdrawn recognition order in respect of the thirteen institutions and allowed them to continue with the result that the students have been admitted and the studies are going on and discrimination is continuing against the petitioners and for removal of discrimination, they are entitled for extension of the date i.e. 31.8.2008 till the meeting dated 20-21/9/2008? (iv) Whether fixing of the cut off date of inspection i.e. 31.8.2008 by the N.C.T.E. by Annexure R-7 dated 1.7.2008 has no reasonable nexus with the aims and object of granting recognition in the meeting dated 20-21.9.2008 or the same is a fortuitous circumstance? (v) When the concerned University has admitted students up to 15.1.09 and submitted that 180 teaching days can be completed before the start of next academic session, then the petitioners who are not at fault, be allowed to suffer? 23. I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered material available on record as well as rival submissions of parties. 24. It is true that two wrong cannot make one right. Here, in the instant case, the present writ petitions have been defended on the ground that since the inspection has been carried out after 31.8.2008 i.e. the cut off date fixed by Annexure R-7 dated 1.7.2008 the petitioners are not entitled for recognition. The respondents have granted recognition to 13 Institutions in whose cases inspection was carried out after 31.8.2008, therefore, they cannot be permitted to say that although they have committed illegality but the same cannot be allowed to be perpetuated by granting recognition to the petitioner Institutions. In my view, the entire issue is to be examined with reference to the decision dated 31.10.2008 when the recognition order was issued in favour of petitioner Institutions in compliance to the interim direction of this Court dated 24.10.2008 as in the meeting dated 20-21.9.2008 minor defects were pointed out in case of recognition order passed in favour of 80 colleges. The fixation of date – 31.8.2008 without considering the applications and completion of formalities is fortuitous and arbitrary. In view of the above, withholding recognition in the meeting dated 20-21/9/2008 and 31.10.2008 is not only discriminatory but arbitrary also and the said action is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The fixation of date – 31.8.2008 without considering the applications and completion of formalities is fortuitous and arbitrary. In view of the above, withholding recognition in the meeting dated 20-21/9/2008 and 31.10.2008 is not only discriminatory but arbitrary also and the said action is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I am of the further view that the respondents who have not acted fairly cannot be allowed to contend that the petitioners are not entitled to recognition on account of inspection being carried out after 31.8.2008 in the aforesaid facts and circumstances. ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS Question No.1 25. The answer to question No.1 is that the respondents have acted discriminatory manner in not granting recognition to the petitioner Institutions in the meeting dated 20-21/9/2008 on the ground that their inspections were carried out after 31.8.2008 whereas the same was the situation in respect of aforesaid thirteen Institutions, hence, there was no justification to deny recognition to the petitioner Institutions in the meeting dated 20-21/9/2008. Question No.2 26. The N.C.T.E. has raised the ground in the last when the Court asked for the names of the Institutions in respect of whom inspections were carried out after 31.8.2008 and list of 13 Institutions was submitted. It is true that an illegality is not to be allowed to be perpetuated but at the same time when it is being allowed to be perpetuated in the cases of 13 Institutions and now the situation cannot be reversed on account of considering employment of more than hundreds of staff as well as more than thousand students. The petitioner Institutions have made arrangements for the staff and developed infrastructure for the study of the students which can still be continued as per the stand taken by the University in Bright Future Teacher Training vs. State (SBCWP No.13038/2008 decided on 12.12.2008). Question No.3 27. In view of answer to Question No.2, the N.C.T.E. should consider extension of the date of inspection i.e. 31.8.2008 to the date of meeting dated 20-21/9/2008 as non extension of the same would cause gross injustice to the petitioner Institutions. As regards completion of 180 teaching days, the answer is given in the judgment dated 12.12.2008 delivered in the case of Bright Future Teacher Training (supra) and the same is applicable in the present case also for completion of 180 teaching days before the start of next academic session. As regards completion of 180 teaching days, the answer is given in the judgment dated 12.12.2008 delivered in the case of Bright Future Teacher Training (supra) and the same is applicable in the present case also for completion of 180 teaching days before the start of next academic session. Question No.4 28. The fixation of date – 31.8.2008 without considering the date of applications and completion of formalities and further fixing the date of inspection is in hand of N.C.T.E., therefore, the same is fortuitous and arbitrary. In view of the above, withholding recognition in the meeting dated 20-21/9/2008 and 31.10.2008 is not only discriminatory but arbitrary also and the said action is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Apart from above, the respondents have taken inconsistent pleas thus have not acted fairly, cannot be allowed to contend that the petitioners are not entitled to recognition on account of inspection being carried out after 31.8.2008 in the aforesaid facts and circumstances. Question No.5 29 As regards this question, iIn the present cases, 180 teaching days can be completed for the academic session 2008-2009 by holding extra classes on holidays, over time classes on working days by counting one teaching day as two teaching days or by shortening the summer vacations in order to ensure the examinations to be held immediately thereafter, which is the past practice of the University/State also to meet out such contingency. 30. The aforesaid writ petition – Bright Future Teacher Training vs. State (supra) was allowed on 12.12.2008 and the admissions in pursuance to the counselling or B.Ed./S.T.C. were made till last week of January, 2009 or first week of February, 2009. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Government may declare that the counselling for the P.T.E.T./S.T.C. is over by the time hearing is concluded and judgment is delivered. On asking the Addl.A.G. he submitted that the State will not declare that the counselling is over and will wait for the outcome of the writ petitions. 31. Now the question arises as to what relief can be granted to the petitioners in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly when the time schedule of 180 teaching days is to be adhered to. There is neither misrepresentation nor delay on the part of the petitioner Institutions. 31. Now the question arises as to what relief can be granted to the petitioners in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly when the time schedule of 180 teaching days is to be adhered to. There is neither misrepresentation nor delay on the part of the petitioner Institutions. The delay is on the part of the respondents and further inconsistent pleas have been taken for which the petitioner Institutions cannot be allowed to suffer. 32. Accordingly, all the aforesaid five writ petitions are allowed, the NCTE is directed to reconsider the whole issue with reference to the meeting dated 20-21/9/2008 or 31.10.2008 for the session 2008-2009 within a period of one week from today after careful consideration of the observations referred to hereinabove and pass appropriate orders of release of recognition order for S.T.C./B.Ed.