ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. Regard being had to the similarity of the factual backdrop and the commonality of the controversy raised in this batch of applications for review, it was heard analogously and is disposed of by a common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts in R.P. No.300/09 are adumbrated herein. 2. The facts which are essential for adjudication of this application for review is that the petitioners are students of Matushree Ahilya Devi Teachers Education Institute, Indore. They had invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court seeking permission to sit in the M.Ed. Examination. The writ petition was presented at Indore Bench, Indore. The Division Bench at Indore on 5-01-2009 had passed the following order: (1) The respondent No. 2 -University will allow the students of M.Ed. Course of the petitioner's college to appear in the examination which is scheduled to begin from 5th Jan., 2009. Since it is not practicably possible for the students of the petitioner college to appear in the paper of 5th and hence the students will be allowed to appear in all remaining papers from 7-01 -09 and onwards. (2) The University - the respondent No.2 shall conduct a separate examination in respect of paper of 5th so far as the students of the petitioner's college is concerned. A separate date for this purpose shall be notified so as to enable the students to appear in the examination on the date so notified. (3) The result of the students of the petitioner's college who have appeared in the examination pursuant to this order shall not be declared unless permitted by this court. (4) Neither the petitioner nor the students who are allowed to appear in the examination pursuant to this order shall be allowed to raise a plea of either equity or any legal submission on the basis of the permission granted to them for appearing in the examination while prosecuting this petition and the petition shall be decided on the basis of the grounds taken in the writ petition. (5) Only those students shall be allowed to appear in the examination pursuant to this order who are qualified to appear in the examination as per the admission list/eligibility certificate granted by the University to the petitioner's College. (5) Only those students shall be allowed to appear in the examination pursuant to this order who are qualified to appear in the examination as per the admission list/eligibility certificate granted by the University to the petitioner's College. (6) Let this order be notified by the petitioner in their notice board forthwith to enable the students of their college to appear in the examination from 7th onwards. 3. Thereafter, on the basis of the order passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on the administrative side, the matter was transferred and was placed before this bench along with other three writ petitions. As none had appeared on behalf of the petitioners, Special Post Cards (SPCs) were issued. Despite the same, there was no appearance. Under these compelling circumstances, the writ petition was heard- 4. This Court heard Mr. K.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the National Council for Teachers Education [NCTE], and Mr. Vibudhendra Mishra, learned counsel appearing for one of the interveners, who submitted that the controversy is covered by the decision rendered in W.P, No. 1056/08 [Yash Shikshan Sansthan Evam Gramin Vikas Samiti v. Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya and ors. and other connected matters] decided on 25-9-08. This Court referred to the decision rendered in Yash Shikshan Sansthan Evam Gramin Vikas Samiti (supra) and reproduced the conclusions which were enumerated in paragraph 40 of the said decision. After producing the conclusions, this Court directed in paragraphs 13 and 14 as follows: 13. At this juncture, Mr. Vivek Dalai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the interveners submitted that that though the intervener, Colleges had recognition from the NCTE and affiliation from the University this Court in W.A. No. 5247/08 directed the State Government that the examination which was scheduled to be held with effect from 27-8-08 should not be held until further orders. It is urged by Mr. Dalai that the institutions are not at fault. We have perused the letter of recognition. In our considered opinion the said letters of recognition require to be scrutinised by the Apex Body. Thus, we are inclined to think that the conclusions and directions given in Vikramaditya Mahavidyalaya, Jabalpur (supra) shall apply on all fours to the case of the interveners also. 14. Mr. K.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the NCTE has fairly agreed that the Apex Body shall scrutinise the facet of recognition of the said institutions by 10-10-08 positively. Thus, we are inclined to think that the conclusions and directions given in Vikramaditya Mahavidyalaya, Jabalpur (supra) shall apply on all fours to the case of the interveners also. 14. Mr. K.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the NCTE has fairly agreed that the Apex Body shall scrutinise the facet of recognition of the said institutions by 10-10-08 positively. After the said exercise is carried out other directions issued in Vikramaditya Mahavidyalaya, Jabalpur (supra) shall be followed and the University shall give stamp of approval to the order of affiliation or issue afresh order. 5. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the NCTE passed an order on 18-12-2008 which pertains to the status of recognition after scrutiny in respect of M.Ed. Course. The said order reads as under: In pursuane of the aforesaid order dated 25-9-08 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the aforesaid writ appeals, the status of recognition was scrutinised in respect of the following institutions. After scrutiny, the status of recognition in respect of such institutions is shown in the chart given below: No. Application Code Name of College Date of formal recognition Effective Year of recognition (with intake capacity) 1 225025 ndoreMahavidyalaya, 04.04.2007 2007-08(25) 2 225-18 Tagore Shikshan Mahavidyalaya 10.11.2006 2007-08(25) 3 225016 Sw. Gulab Bai Yadav Shiksha Mahavidyalaya 27-09-2006 2007-08(40) 4 225065 Sri Kanvartara Institute for Teacher Training, Khargone 24-04-2008 2008-09(25) 5 225033 Matusri Ahilya Devi Teachers Education Institute, Indore 05.01.2008 2008-09(25) 6 225038 Yash College of Education, Dhar 15.03.2008 2008-09(25) 7 225062 Vidyasagar College 10.01.2008 2008-09(25) Thereafter, this Court came to hold as under: Be it noted, the present colleges find mention at Serial Nos.4 to 7. The said colleges have been granted formal recognition in the year 2008 from January to April, 2008. In this context, we may refer with profit to Clause 2.2 of Norms and Standards for - Master of Education Programme leading to Master of Education (M.Ed.) Degree, which reads as under: 2.2 Working Days (a) There shall be at least 180 working days exclusive of periods of examination and admission etc., for instruction, field work for dissertation and internship in a teacher education institution. (b) A working day shall be of a minimum of 6 hours in a six-day week, during which physical presence of all teachers and students shall be ensured to facilitate individual attention, guidance, advice and counselling. (b) A working day shall be of a minimum of 6 hours in a six-day week, during which physical presence of all teachers and students shall be ensured to facilitate individual attention, guidance, advice and counselling. Similar provision is there in regard to B.Ed. course. The said provision has been interpreted in number of decisions by this Court and it has been held that 180 working days are to be completed. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petitions are sans merit and deserve to be dismissed. Interim orders passed by this Court, needless to emphasise, has to melt into insignificance, as we have dismissed the main petitions. We may hasten to clarify, it is open to the students to file independent proceedings for grant of compensation, if so advised. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. Thereafter, the present application for review has been filed. It is contended in the application for review that the State Government had granted 'no objection certificate' in favour of the institution-society on 18-5-07, Annexure-P/2, for the M.Ed. Course. There is a reference to the National Council for Teachers Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2005 and the Norms and the Standards for Masters of Education Programme Leading to Master of Education (M.Ed.) Degree. It is put forth that the society had applied for recognition and on being satisfied with the available infrastructure, conditional recognition was granted to the society for commencing M.Ed. Course on 09/16-06-2007. Upon fulfilling other conditions of the NCTE, it granted unconditional recognition on 05-01-2008 as per Annexure-P/6. The society applied for grant of affiliation to the Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore and on further completion of inspection and detailed scrutiny, affiliation was granted by the University for the academic session 2007-08 by order dated 17-01-2008. As the college was granted recognition and affiliation, it had admitted 25 students in M.Ed. Course for the academic session 2007-08. The University, as pleaded, sought details from the College about the total duration of studies of each student for the academic session 2007-08 by sending letters dated 01-05-08 and 03-05-2008 pursuant to which the society/college promptly furnished the details of the attendance of the students. Course for the academic session 2007-08. The University, as pleaded, sought details from the College about the total duration of studies of each student for the academic session 2007-08 by sending letters dated 01-05-08 and 03-05-2008 pursuant to which the society/college promptly furnished the details of the attendance of the students. The University examined and scrutinised the attendance details and declared eligibility of the College and their students for being permitted to appear in the final examination. Copy of the University's notification dated 05-5-2008 has been brought on record as Annexure-P/13. The University had published/declared the final examination schedule on 01-8-08 according to which the final examination for M.Ed. Course was scheduled to commence from 27-8-08. When the students and the College were all set to participate in the final examination of one year M.Ed. Course, the University suddenly refused to grant permission to the College and the petitioners were not permitted to appear in the final examination on the foundation that 180 teaching days had not been completed even when more than 180 teaching days had been completed. Being aggrieved by the said communication of the University dated 12-8-08, the society-college had preferred a writ petition forming the subject-matter of W.P. No.5244/08, which was dismissed and W.A. No.734/2008 was carried. The writ appeal was transferred to the Principal Bench and was renumbered as W.A. No.1058/08. The Division Bench at Jabalpur directed the NCTE to scrutinise the facet of recognition on the basis of the decision rendered in Vikramaditya Mahavidyalaya, Jabalpur (supra). The said final order dated 25-9-08 has been brought on record as Annexure-P/18. 7. It is contended that the NCTE without caring to examine the true nature of the directions of this Court simply issued an office order on 18-12-2008 informing the Registrar of the University about the status of recognition and the effective year of the order of recognition. It is put forth that the NCTE has erred in fixing the effective date of recognition. It is urged that the petitioner-society had admitted the students only upon having the legitimate order of recognition from the NCTE for the M.Ed. Course. The University authority could not have refused to allow the students to appear in the final examination by raising a plea that (hey had not completed 180 days teaching course. It is urged that the petitioner-society had admitted the students only upon having the legitimate order of recognition from the NCTE for the M.Ed. Course. The University authority could not have refused to allow the students to appear in the final examination by raising a plea that (hey had not completed 180 days teaching course. It is averred that the College was granted the permission to admit 25 students for the academic session 2007-08 and, therefore, they were entitled to appear and the interim order should have been made final and the writ petition should have been disposed of in a different way, but it has been erroneously dismissed. In this backdrop, the following prayers have been made: (1) That the order dated 18-12-2008 (Annexure-P/19) passed by the Member Secretary of the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi, declaring effective academic year to be 2008-09 in place of its previously issued recognition order, providing for commencement of academic session w.e.f. Academic Session 2007-2008 may kindly be order to be quashed. (II) That consequent upon quashment of the NCTE's order dated 18-12-2008 and on the strength of previously issued recognition orders for the academic session 2007-08 the students admitted in M.Ed. Course may kindly be permitted to appear in the Main Examination, as students of academic Session 2007-08 and the University may kindly be directed to conduct examination for them. (III) That the order dated 12-8-08 (Annexure-P/15) passed by Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore refusing to allow the regular students of M.Ed. to appear in the final year's examination of current academic session 2007-08 may also be kindly (sic) directed. (IV) That, the Devi Ahilya Vishvavidyalaya, Indore may kindly be further directed to count 180 teaching days from the date of grant of recognition by the National Council for Teacher training and not from the date of grant of affiliation by the University, in accordance with the Regulations and Norms of the NCTE. 8. It is the stand in the review petition that during the pendency of the writ petition, the institution had submitted a representation to the NCTE seeking reconsideration of its decision to recognise the institution for the academic session 2007-08 and on the basis of the said representation, the NCTE sought information from the respondent-University as to whether the institution had completed 180 teaching days in the M.Ed. Course. Course. The said communication dated 21-4-2009 has been brought on record as Annexure-A/ 3. In response to the said communication, the University informed the NCTE that the institution had completed 180 teaching days in the M.Ed. Course during the academic session 2007-08. On the basis of the information furnished by the University, the respondent-NCTE granted recognition for the academic session 2007-2008 on 13-5-2009. In this backdrop, prayer has been made to recall the order and to allow the writ petition commanding to the respondent No.2 to declare the results of M.Ed. Final Examination conducted in the month of June, 2009. 9. This Court while issuing notice of the review application on 19-6-09 had directed the Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, NCTE and the Registrar of the Devi Ahilya University, Indore to remain personally present. The matter was taken up on 25-6-09 on which day the following order came to be passed: Let the matters be listed on 16-7-09. On that day the learned counsel for the NCTE shall produce the records on what basis the recognition had been granted. The Member Secretary of the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi shall remain present on that day, failing which a proceeding for contempt shall be initiated against him. Ms. P.Subba Lakshmi, Under Secretary of the Central Body of the NCTE who had signed the letter to communicate the University for the purpose of scrutiny, the Regional Director, Western Regional Committee of the NCTE and the Registrar of the University shall also remain personally present before this Court on that day. The Regional Director of the Western Regional Committee, NCTE is directed to file an affidavit with regard to the factual controversy in issue. Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel is appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court. Mr. Vibudhendra Mishra is also requested to assist the Court. Registry is directed to place the petition along with the writ petition. Call on date fixed. 10. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the Member Secretary of NCTE filed an affidavit to the following effect: 2. I state that pursuant to the order dated 25-6-08 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No.742/08 (arising out of W.P. No. 5246/08) the status of recognition was scrutinised in respect of the concerned institution. 10. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the Member Secretary of NCTE filed an affidavit to the following effect: 2. I state that pursuant to the order dated 25-6-08 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No.742/08 (arising out of W.P. No. 5246/08) the status of recognition was scrutinised in respect of the concerned institution. After scrutiny an order was passed on 18th December, 2008, Annexure-A, indicating the status of Matushri Ahilyadevi Teachers Education Institute, Indore for the academic session 2008-09. 3. I further state that the college made a representation on 31-01-09, Annexure-B to the National Council for Teacher Education, Headquarters at New Delhi for reconsideration of its case for modifying its recognition status from 2008-09 to 2007-08. 4. I state that in a separate action, the petitioner filed a petition in the Hon'ble Court of Indore, for modifying their status of recognition as above, which was transferred to Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The Hon'ble High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur dismissed the petition vide its order dated 17-4-09. The counsel of NCTE at Jabalpur got certified copy of the order dated 17-04-09 on 20-5-09 and sent it to the Western Regional Council, Bhopal (WRC). In the meantime, since the representation was made by the college on 31-01-2009, it came to be processed and a letter dated 21 -04-09, Annexure-C was written to the Registrar, Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore making certain queries about the actual teaching days during 2007-08. It is submitted that it was a mistake and it occurred only because the order dated 17-04-2009 passed by this Hon'ble Court was not within the knowledge of the NCTE. Otherwise, the representation would have not been considered at all. However, the reply of the Registrar, Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore that their information about 180 days teaching by the institution during the session 2007-08 was based on the information submitted by the institution, was not accepted by the NCTE. However, instead of issuing letter to this effect, inadvertently a letter dated 13-05-2009 was issued which was not in accordance with the decision taken on the file by the NCTE (Copy of the letter at Annexure-Cl). 5. I further state that the letter dated 13-5-09 written to the Registrar of the Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya came to be written under a mistake changing the status from 2008-09 to 2007-08. 6. 5. I further state that the letter dated 13-5-09 written to the Registrar of the Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya came to be written under a mistake changing the status from 2008-09 to 2007-08. 6. I state that as soon as the mistake came to my notice, it was promptly rectified and an order was issued on 8-07-99, Annexure-D to the Registrar of the University stating that 'it was inadvertently conveyed that the above said institution is to be considered as recognised with effect from 2007-08 session onwards instead of 2008-09 session as communicated earlier and to say that the said letter stands' withdrawn. 7. I further state that it was a bona fide mistake by the office. 8. I sincerely apologize for the above mistake and assure that such type of mistake would not occur in future and further assure that the NCTE would be more cautious and responsible in carrying out its function in future. 11. An affidavit has also been filed by the Under Secretary of NCTE, New Delhi, stating as follows: 2. I state that a submission was made to the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur on 18-12-08 by NCTE, New Delhi inter alia indicating the status of Matushri Ahilyadevi Teachers Education Institute, Indore effective from the academic session 2008-09. 3. I further state that the college made, a representation on 31-01-09 to the National Council for Teacher Education, Headquarters at New Delhi for reconsideration of its case for modifying its recognition status from 2008-09 to 2007-08. 4. That, I state that unaware of the order dated 17-04-09 rejecting the petition of the petitioners for modifying their recognition status passed by this Hon'ble Court, the representation made by the institution continued to be examined by NCTE Headquarters in consultation with the Registrar of the University and the letter dated 13th May, 2009 -was issued to the Registrar of the University inadvertently. 5. That, I further state that it was a bona fide mistake that has occurred. When the mistake -was detected, 1 brought it to the notice of the senior officers and the same was rectified by issuing a letter dated 8-7-09 withdrawing the earlier letter dated 13-5-09. 6. I sincerely tender my apology for the above mistake and assure that such type of mistake would not occur in future. 12. When the mistake -was detected, 1 brought it to the notice of the senior officers and the same was rectified by issuing a letter dated 8-7-09 withdrawing the earlier letter dated 13-5-09. 6. I sincerely tender my apology for the above mistake and assure that such type of mistake would not occur in future. 12. On a perusal of the affidavits, it is clear as day that the authorities of the NCTE had committed a mistake and accepted it be a bona fide mistake and rectifying it tendered their apology. The submission of Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants, is that the students had completed 180 days M.Ed. Course and they are entitled to appear in the firtal examination. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the modified order passed by the NCTE, which has been brought on record as Annexure-A/5. The said order, dated 13-5-09, reads as follows: F. No.92-ll/2008Court(Appeal) date 13-5-09 The Registrar Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya Indore (MP) Sub: Recognition status of M.Ed. Course for the academic session 2007-08 - regarding Matushri Ahilyadevi Teachers Education Institute, Indore. Sir, I am directed to refer to Matushri Ahilyadevi Teachers Education Institute's representation dated 31-01-2009 -wherein it has been requested to issue modified recognition status in respect of its M.Ed. Course to its examining body "DeviAhilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore, " so that its name could figure in the recognised list for the academic session 2007-08 as it had completed 180 days of teaching for its 25 students and the students also submitted their dissertations. 2. The Council earlier informed the recognition status of seven colleges to DAVV in reference to common Order dated 25-9-08 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in W.P. Nos. 1056-59, wherein Matushri Ahilya Teachers Education Institute -was shown as recognised one w.e.f. 2008-09. 3. The Council further considered the case of the institution and examined the documents available in the relevant file, documents sent along with the representation and found that the said institution was issued a conditional order on 16-06-07 and unconditional order on 15-01-08 and in both the orders effective session of recognition was not mentioned. The institution obtained affiliation from the University on 17-01-08 for the session 2007-08 and conducted the session 2007-08 as per norms. The institution obtained affiliation from the University on 17-01-08 for the session 2007-08 and conducted the session 2007-08 as per norms. The Registrar of the University vide his letter dated 28-4-08 confirmed that the institution conducted 180 teaching days for 25 students of M.Ed. for the session 2007-08. The Council, therefore, decided that the said institution is to be considered as recognised one, w.e.f. 2007-08 onwards, instead of 2008-09 as communicated earlier. Yours faithfully, (P.Subba Lakshmi) Under secretary Copy for information to: The Director, Matushri Ahilya-Devi Teachers Education Institute, 23, Press Complex, A.B. Road, Indore (MP) 13. The affidavit sworn to by the NCTE shows that it was not in accordance with the decision taken by the NCTE. It is clarified therein that the College did not have the recognition for the year 2007-08. It was given recognition for the academic session 2008-09. The said letter had been issued on 18-01-2008. Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that assuming the recognition was given on 18-11-08, the respondents would have completed 180 days and thereafter should have been permitted to appear in the examination. 14. On a perusal of the entire scenario and the earlier orders which were reproduced, it is discernible that the College was granted affiliation for the academic session 2008-09. The claim of the petitioners is that they had taken admission in respect of the academic session 2007-08 and had completed 180 working days. The submission of Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants, if we permit ourselves to say so, is quite innovative. It is canvassed by him that even assuming for the sake of argument that the students had taken admission for the academic session 2007-08 and they had attended 180 days working days commencing from the date of recognition, there should be no bar for them to appear in the examination. The said submission, at a first glance, may look to have some kind of acceptability but on a deeper scrutiny the fallacy in the argument gets slowly unfolded and uncurtained. The institution did not have the recognition for the academic year 2007-2008. It could not have admitted the students for that academic session. Once it could not have admitted the students for the said academic session, it could not have imparted education. It is also very much doubtful whether the faculty members were there or not. The institution did not have the recognition for the academic year 2007-2008. It could not have admitted the students for that academic session. Once it could not have admitted the students for the said academic session, it could not have imparted education. It is also very much doubtful whether the faculty members were there or not. In any case, if the students had taken admission in a non-recognised college, they cannot claim to get the benefit of appearance in the examination. Another aspect which also assumes signification is that the college was conferred the status of a recognized institute in 2008-2009. The academic session, as Mr. Vivek Sharma would contend, commences in September. Prior to that, no student can be admitted or imparted training for the Course. Thus, the tall claim of the petitioners to allow them to appear in the 2007-2008 examination does not arise. Their period has to commence from September, 2008. Thereafter, if they complete 180 working days and fulfill other formalities, then only they can appear in the examination. The NCTE has owned its mistake and apologized. 15. In view of the aforesaid, there is no justification to review the order except stating that if the students complete 180 days course for the academic session 2008-09 as per the Norms and Standards for Masters of Education Programme Leading to Master of Education (M.Ed.) Degree of NCTE, the University can permit them to appear in the examination after following due formalities. By no stretch of imagination, they can be relegated to earlier period as that would be anathema to justice. The students who have taken admission in a "non-recognised college cannot claim to gain any advantage at all. As is manifest, the NCTE realised its mistake in various spheres and assured this Court to behave and conduct properly. It is worth-noting that it is not, in fact, an admission taken by virtue of the norms of the NCTE, and hence, they cannot claim for appearing in the examination due to the fault of the NCTE, as their initial entry into the college is ab initio void. 16. In view of the aforesaid, we do not perceive any merit in this batch of review petitions and accordingly, they stand rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.