Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has sought for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.9487/E1/2007 dated 29.05.2008 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the 1st respondent to grant staff approval to the petitioner Institute for the academic year 2007-2008. 2. The petitioner institute was established in the year 2005 and it applied for recognition before the Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) on 23.12.2005. Since the competent authority was delaying the grant of recognition, the petitioner filed W.P.No.35339 of 2006 and this Court, by an order, dated 23.09.2006, directed the Regional Director, NCTE, to pass orders on the application for recognition, after conducting necessary inspection and without insisting the No Objection Certificate from the State Government. Thereafter, in January, 2007, the petitioner was granted recognition for an intake of 50 students for the academic year 2006-07 and the petitioner had applied for approval of staff before the 1st respondent on 08.03.2007. One of the conditions prescribed by the competent authority for grant of recognition was that the petitioner institution should ensure that a Principal and five faculty members duly approved by the 1st respondent are in position for an intake of 50 students before the commencement of the course. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that they sent the proposal for approval of their staff by submitting the list of the staff to the 1st respondent through the Principal, DIET, G.Ariyur, Villupuram District. But, the 1st respondent, vide his order dated 16.08.2007, had rejected the said proposal, stating that the proposal submitted with regard to the Principal R.Govindasamy was that his M.Ed.mark sheet was found to be faked and hence in the place of R.Govindasamy, one A.Periyasamy was appointed and according to his M.Ed.mark sheet, it was found that he obtained only 58% of marks and that the same could not be accepted. With regard to the appointment of the other Lecturer, by name, M.Samraj, it was rejected on the ground that he had obtained only 371 out of 700, though he had the requisite qualification and more than 36 years of experience as a Headmaster in Elementary School. The said Periyasamy was replaced by one N.Rajeswari on 24.08.2007, who had the requisite qualification. The said Periyasamy was replaced by one N.Rajeswari on 24.08.2007, who had the requisite qualification. Challenging the order of the 1st respondent dated 16.08.2007, he filed W.P.No.26641 of 2007 and this Court had allowed the said writ petition, quashing the order passed by the 1st respondent and directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the proposals and pass orders within four weeks, by its order dated 05.09.2007. Since the 1st respondent did not pass any order within the stipulated time, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition in No.1842 of 2007 and during the pendency of the contempt petition, the 1st respondent, once again, rejected the proposals sent by the petitioner on the sole ground that the cut-off date for approval of the staff list for the academic year 2007-2008 was over as early as 20.06.2007 and hence, the staff approval could not be granted for the academic year 2007-2008. However, the 1st respondent had given an undertaking that the staff list would be approved for the academic year 2008-2009 and recording the said undertaking, the contempt petition was closed. The petitioner resubmitted the proposals for approval of the staff on 28.01.2008. The petitioner filed W.P.No.8551 of 2008 and the Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to pass orders on the said proposal. However, the 1st respondent had again rejected the proposal on 29.05.2008. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner institute, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that originally the application submitted by the petitioner for approval of the staff was rejected by the 1st respondent on 16.08.2007 since it was found that the mark sheet of the Principal Govindasamy was faked. Immediately, within seven days from the date of rejection, one Periyasamy was appointed in the place of Govindasamy and thereafter, he was replaced by one Rajeswari on 24.08.2007. Even thereafter, the approval was not granted. Hence, he filed W.P.No.26641 of 2007, wherein this Court quashed the order of the 1st respondent dated 16.08.2007 and directed the respondents to pass appropriate order. But, once again, by another order dated 18.12.2007, the 1st respondent had rejected the proposal stating that the cut-off date for approval of the staff for the academic year 2007-2008 was over as early as 20.06.2007. But, once again, by another order dated 18.12.2007, the 1st respondent had rejected the proposal stating that the cut-off date for approval of the staff for the academic year 2007-2008 was over as early as 20.06.2007. In the contempt petition filed by the petitioner, the 1st respondent has given an undertaking that the staff approval would be granted for the academic year 2008-2009. But, when the petitioner resubmitted the proposal, the 1st respondent, by the impugned order dated 29.05.2008, rejected the proposal for the same reasons he had assigned earlier. 5. In this regard, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that absolutely, there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in sending the proposal for approval of the staff. When it was stated by the 1st respondent that the approval could not be granted without assigning reasons, in spite of rectification of the same, again and again the 1st respondent had rejected the approval list for one reason or the other, which ultimately resulted in passing the impugned order. Because of the impugned rejection order dated 29.05.2008, the students, who had been admitted in the academic year 2007-2008 and who had undergone one year training, were not in a position to sit for the examination that was held on 26.06.2008 and after filing this writ petition, by way of an interim order, 25 students had appeared for the examination conducted on 26.06.2008, but their results were not declared as per the order of this Court dated 24.06.2008. Thus, the learned senior counsel submitted that the rejection of the approval of staff for the academic year 2007-2008 is illegal, which ultimately resulted in causing irreparable loss and hardship to the students for no fault of them. The learned senior counsel further contended that this Court in a similar situation in W.P.No.12116 of 2009, directed the respondents to permit the students to write the examination, publish the result and issue diploma certificates, following the order passed in W.P.No.18798 of 2008 and hence, he prays for the relief as sought for in the petition. 6. Resisting the petitioners claim, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that until the staff list is approved, the petitioner is not supposed to admit the students, but they had admitted the students at their own risk. 6. Resisting the petitioners claim, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that until the staff list is approved, the petitioner is not supposed to admit the students, but they had admitted the students at their own risk. Under such circumstances, they cannot seek for the approval of the staff list pertaining to the year 2007-2008 at this length of time. Further, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the cut-off date for approval of the academic year is over as early as 20.06.2007 and thereafter only, the petitioner had appointed the new Principal Ms.Rajeswariin the place of Periyasamy. Therefore, no fault could be found in the rejection order passed by the 1st respondent. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner institute was granted recognition by the Regional Director, NCTE on 09.01.2007. As per the conditions stipulated for the recognition made by the NCTE that the petitioner should get their staff list approved by the 1st respondent, the petitioner submitted the proposal for approval of their staff to the 1st respondent through the Principal on 08.03.2007, but the 1st respondent had rejected the same only on 16.08.2007 stating that the M.Ed. mark sheet of the Principal Govindasamy was found to have been faked. Thereafter, within eight days, the petitioner institute appointed one Rajeswari as the Principal. Since the same was not approved, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.26641 of 2007. wherein a direction was given to the respondents to pass orders within four weeks. Since the said order was not complied with, the petitioner was forced to file the Contempt petition and during the pendency of the said contempt petition, once again, the 1st respondent has rejected the proposal stating that the cut-off date for approval of the staff list for the academic year 2007-2008 was over as early as 20.06.2007. Thereafter, by the impugned order, the proposal for approval of the staff list was rejected on the same reasoning that the appointment of Rajeswari was subsequent to the cut-off date. Now, the question that has arisen is, whether the rejection order passed by the 1st respondent on the ground that the appointment of Rajeswari is subsequent to thecut-off date for the academic year 2007-2008 is justifiable or not ? 9. Now, the question that has arisen is, whether the rejection order passed by the 1st respondent on the ground that the appointment of Rajeswari is subsequent to thecut-off date for the academic year 2007-2008 is justifiable or not ? 9. On a perusal of the materials, I find that the petitioner had sent the staff list as early as 18.03.2007 to the 1st respondent, which was rejected by the 1st respondent after five months on 16.08.2007 i.e. subsequent to the expiry of the cut-off date (20.06.2007) for the academic year 2007-2008 stating that the M.Ed. mark sheets of Govindasamy and Periyasamy were found to have been manipulated and one Samraj had obtained only lesser marks. But, immediately, the 1st respondent had appointed one Rajeswari. Even then, once again the 1st respondent had rejected the staff list by order dated 18.12.2007 and again by the impugned order dated 29.05.2008 on the reasoning that the appointment of Rajeswari was subsequent to the cut off date. I find that the 1st rejection letter dated 16.08.2007 itself was sent only after the cut off date. Naturally, the petitioner could comply with the defects pointed out by the respondent only after December, 2007 and accordingly, they had complied within seven days. Under such circumstances, I do not find any justification in the order of rejection passed by the 1st respondent on the ground that the appointment of Rajeswari was subsequent to the cutoff date. As contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, in a similar situation, this court had directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to write the examination, publish results and issue diploma certificates. In fact, in those cases, after the rejection order, the petitioners did not comply with the order of the 1st respondent. But in the instant case, by appointing one Rajeswari, the petitioner had complied with the requirements as pointed out in the rejection orders. In spite of the compliance, the petitioner institute was repeatedly made to run from pillar to post on one ground or the other. Looked at any angle, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is not justifiable and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. In spite of the compliance, the petitioner institute was repeatedly made to run from pillar to post on one ground or the other. Looked at any angle, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is not justifiable and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is set aside and the respondents are directed to declare the examination result of the students that was held on 26.06.2008 pertaining to the academic year 2007-2008. No costs.