JUDGMENT : It is submitted by the petitioner that the respondents No. 1 and 2 inspite of order dated 28.10.2010 in W.P. 15427/2010 have not inspected the premises of the petitioner which is situated on plot No.67 area 1633 sq.ft. While the respondent No.1 and 2 ought to have inspected the premises. It is further submitted by Shri Gupta that specific order was passed by NCTE Annexure P-4 on 26.3.2010, by which the recognition of the petitioner was continued till fresh order is passed by the Regional Committee. Stating aforesaid it is submitted by Shri Gupta that the petitioner institution be permitted to participate in the on going counseling. Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submitted that until and unless an affiliation by the University is granted prior to the counseling, petitioner is not entitled to participate in the counseling. He has placed reliance to the judgment of this Court in Jan Sewa Shiksha Samiti vs State of M.P. & ors. [ ILR 2008 MP 706] and unreported judgment in W.P. No.613 of 2008 [Vikramaditya Mahavidhyalaya vs. Union of India] dated 31.7.2008. Shri K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2 submitted that in so far as the plot No.67 is concerned, no documents were filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.1 and 2. So far as the documents which are filed by the petitioner before respondent No. 1 and 2 are concerned, those have been placed alongwith the reply of the NCTE. It is further submitted the petitioner institution is not a recognised institution, so it is not entitled to participate in the counseling. It is not in dispute that as on date, petitioner is not having recognition by the respondent No.1 and 2 and affiliation by respondent No.4 which is a condition precedent for participating in the counseling. A Division Bench of this Court in Vikramaditya Mahavidhyalaya W.P.6113/2008 (supra), considering the question held thus :- 40. Now we proceed to record our conclusions and directions in seriatim :- (a) The State Government cannot refuse 'No objection Certificate' relying on the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 in view of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (supra). (b) The institutions are bound to follow the Regulations of the NCTE and the Universities are required to respect the Regulations and act accordingly. (b) The institutions are bound to follow the Regulations of the NCTE and the Universities are required to respect the Regulations and act accordingly. The institutions/Colleges can give admissions only after they obtain the order of recognition from the Regional Committee concerned under Regulation 7(1) and affiliation from the concerned examining body. (d) The order of recognition is always prospective. (e) On the basis of the order of recognition, the institution is entitled to obtain affiliation from the examining body after fulfilling the criteria mentioned in the NCTE Act and Regulations and thereafter admit the students. (f) The NCTE cannot pass an order of recognition retrospectively. (g) The order of recognition itself does not enable the institution to treat the recognition as a blanket order and violate other requirements that may be prescribed by the affiliating examining body which is in accord with the 1993 Act and Regulations. (h) The State Government has shown lackadaisical attitude in not showing any response to the letter of NCTE. (i) The State Government shall positively reply to the Apex Body of the NCTE within a week hence, failing which it would be presumed that it has no recommendation to make. (j) The universities shall forward the documents received by them to the NCTE for verification with regard to the status of recognition and their queries within a week hence by special messengers. (k) The Apex Body shall scrutinize the recognition order and the documents brought on file and take a decision whether those institutions are recognised or not. The said decision shall be taken within a period of seven days therefrom, i.e. Seven days from the receipt of the documents from the universities. The Apex Body shall also scrutinise the recognitions which were not the subject matter of the litigation before this Court to find out whether the said recognitions were valid as per the NCTE Act and the regulations framed thereunder. (l) The Apex Body shall communicate to the universities and the State Government about the recognition facet positively within a week therefrom. (m) The universities shall scrutinize the norms for the purpose of grant of affiliation in terms of the order of recognition and the provisions contained in the Regulations, regard being had to the decisions of this Court within seven days and issue letters of affiliation whenever justified. (m) The universities shall scrutinize the norms for the purpose of grant of affiliation in terms of the order of recognition and the provisions contained in the Regulations, regard being had to the decisions of this Court within seven days and issue letters of affiliation whenever justified. (n) Though we have fixed the time limit for issue of recognition letter and affiliation on scrutiny, yet the respondents can do it in phase-wise manner. To elaborate if in certain cases scrutiny is done within two days of three days, the same can be forwarded so that prompt action can be taken by all concerned. (o) The respondent No.2, the Commissioner of Higher Education, could not have proceeded for advertisement for admission in B.Ed courses on-line. Hence, it is directed that till the aforesaid exercise is carried out no admission shall be given in any colleges/institutions for the academic session of 2008-09 as the whole thing, as directed, would settle within a period of 21 days. The respondents are restrained from giving on-line registration and counseling. (p) If any admission has already been given, the same shall be kept in abeyance. (q) The case of the petitioner-college shall also be scrutinized by the Apex Body of the NCTE as well as by the concerned university. (r) In the name of education, the colleges should not function like shops as there is Himalayan difference between imparting education and sale of goods. (s) The aforesaid directions should be followed in letter and spirit and no deviation should be shown by any of the authorities. (t) The State Government and the universities have to keep themselves abreast with regard to the norms, standards and command of law and not travel in the realm of individual fancy. (u) The universities have a sacrosanct role and they should be well advised not to abandon the same. The NCTE, the paramount body, must shoulder the responsibilities and not treat the same as a burden and carry out the responsibilities in a routine or languorous manner. 41. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. In view of the settled position that for participating in the counseling, it is necessary that the institution should have recognised and affiliation by respondents No. 1 and 2 and 4 respectively, petitioner cannot be permitted to participate in the on going counseling. 41. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. In view of the settled position that for participating in the counseling, it is necessary that the institution should have recognised and affiliation by respondents No. 1 and 2 and 4 respectively, petitioner cannot be permitted to participate in the on going counseling. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for issuing ad interim writ. Prayer of the petitioner is rejected. Reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 has been filed. Shri Kaurav, learned counsel for respondent No.4 prays for a week's time to file reply. Prayer is allowed. Be listed immediately after filing of the reply by respondent No.4.