JUDGMENT Z.A. HAQ, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mirza, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Dangre, Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. In these bunch of writ petitions, common question of law is involved and, therefore, the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 4. In Writ Petition No. 4533/2012, the submission of the petitioner is that the National Council for Teacher Education by order dated lst/9th August, 2012 has granted recognition order to Shri Padmaprabha Digambar Jain Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Khadshangh (Ansingh), Tahsil and District Washim to start D. E1. Ed. course of Elementary level of two years with an annual intake of 50 students from the academic session 2012-2013. After receiving recognition order, the petitioner made application to respondent No. 2-State Council for grant of affiliation but by communication dated 7th September, 2012 respondent No. 2-State Council informed the National Council for Teacher Education that it has taken a decision that the affiliation will not be granted to any D.T. Ed, colleges in the State henceforth. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the abovementioned decision of respondent No. 2-State Council, has filed writ petition. After filing of the writ petition, the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 2012 is issued stating that the State Government will not give affiliation to any new teacher colleges in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner has amended the writ petition and has challenged the above referred Government Resolution. 5. In Writ Petition No. 1982/2013, the submission of the petitioner is that the National Council for Teacher Education by order dated 16th/21st September, 2011 has granted recognition order to Rajiv Gandhi D. Ed, College, Chandrapur for D. Ed. (M) (CO-ED) course of two years duration with an annual intake of 50 students. After receiving recognition order, the petitioner made application to respondent No. 2-State Council for grant of affiliation but by communication dated 28th August, 2012 respondent No. 2-State Council informed the National Council for Teacher Education that it has taken a decision that the affiliation will not be granted to any D. Ed. Colleges in the State henceforth. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the above mentioned decision of respondent No. 2-State Council, has filed writ petition. 6. Colleges in the State henceforth. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the above mentioned decision of respondent No. 2-State Council, has filed writ petition. 6. In Writ Petition No. 4986/2012, the submission of the petitioner is that the National Council for Teacher Education by order dated 31-8-2012 has granted recognition order to P.N. Bhele D. Ed. College Nara, Tahsil Karanja. Dist Wardha to start D. El. Ed. course of Elementary level of two years with an annual intake of 50 students from the academic session 2012-2013. After receiving recognition order, the petitioner made an application to respondent No. 2-State Council for grant of affiliation but by communication dated 4th/13th September, 2012 respondent No. 2-State Council informed the National Council for Teacher Education that it has taken a decision that the affiliation will not be granted to any D. Ed. College in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the above mentioned decision of respondent No. 2-State Council, has filed writ petition. After filing of the writ petition, the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 2012 is issued stating that the State Government will not give affiliation to any new teacher colleges in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner has amended the writ petition and has challenged the above referred Government Resolution. 7. In Writ Petition No. 4993/2012, the submission of the petitioner is that the National Council for Teacher Education by order dated 14th/16th August, 2012 has granted recognition order to Azad Hind Shaikshanik Sanstha, Dr. Dilawarhkhan Adhyapak Vidyalaya. Borgaon Manju, Distt. Akola to start D. Ed. (M) (Co. Ed.) course with an annual intake of 50 students from the academic year 2012-2013. After receiving recognition order, the petitioner made an application to respondent No. 2-State Council for grant of affiliation but by communication dated 7th September, 2012 respondent No. 2-State Council informed the National Council for Teacher Education that it has taken a decision that the affiliation will not be granted to any D.T. Ed. Colleges in the State henceforth. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the above mentioned decision of respondent No. 2-State Council, has filed writ petition. After filing of the writ petition, the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 2012 is issued stating that the State Government will not give affiliation to any new teacher colleges in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner has amended the writ petition and has challenged the above referred Government Resolution. 8. After filing of the writ petition, the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 2012 is issued stating that the State Government will not give affiliation to any new teacher colleges in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner has amended the writ petition and has challenged the above referred Government Resolution. 8. In Writ Petition No. 5260/2012, the submission of the petitioner is that the National Council for Teacher Education by order dated 28th August, 2012 has granted recognition to S.L.D. Ed. College Durgwada Tahsil Morshi, District Amravati to start D. El. Ed. course of Elementary level of two years with an annual intake of 50 students from the academic session 2012-2013. After receiving recognition order, the petitioner made an application to respondent No. 2-State Council for grant of affiliation but by communication dated 13th September, 2012 respondent No. 2-State Council informed the National Council for Teacher Education that it has taken a decision that the affiliation will not be granted to any D.T. Ed. Colleges in the State henceforth. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the above mentioned decision of respondent No. 2-State Council, has filed writ petition. After filing of the writ petition, the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 2012 is issued stating that the State Government will not give affiliation to any new teacher colleges in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner has amended the writ petition and has challenged the above referred Government Resolution. 9. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the National Council of Teacher Education (for short “NCTE”) which is the apex body, having granted recognition exercising its powers under section 14(3)(a) of the National Council For Teachers Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1993”), in view of the provisions of section 14(6)(a) of the Act of 1993 respondent No. 2 is under an obligation to grant affiliation and refusal on the part of the respondent No. 2-State Council to grant affiliation is not only illegal and contrary to the mandatory provisions of section 14(6) of the Act of 1993 but is in patent breach of law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in several judgments. 10. Mr. 10. Mr. Mirza, Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that there has been constant and continuous attempt on the part of the respondents to frustrate the provisions of section 14 of the Act of 1993 and to denude the powers and authority of the NCTE. Mr. Mirza has submitted that in 2004 the Government of Maharashtra had taken a policy decision that it will not grant “No Objection Certificate” to any institutions for starting new B. Ed. college for academic session 2005-2006. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya had filed writ petition challenging communication dated 28th December, 2004 issued by the State of Maharashtra by which it was informed that the State of Maharashtra had taken a policy decision that “No Objection Certificate” will not be granted to any institution for starting new B. Ed. college for the academic session 2005-2006. In spite of the policy decision of the State of Maharashtra, the NCTE had granted permission to Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and, therefore, the State had filed writ petition contending that the decision of the NCTE granting recognition to Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya amending the decision of the State Government dated 28th December, 2004 was not in consonance with law and was liable to be quashed. Both the writ petitions were decided by a common judgment by this Court. The writ petition filed by Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya was allowed and the communication/decision of the State Government dated 28th December, 2004 was quashed and the University was directed to take consequential action in the light of recognition granted by NCTE in favour of these institutions. The State of Maharashtra has challenged the above referred judgment before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court by judgment reported in (2006) 9 SCC 1 , State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya upheld the judgment of this Court. 11. Mr. Mirza, Advocate for the petitioner, submits that the Government of Maharashtra again refused to grant permission to Gyanodaya Shikshan Pracharak Samiti's Gyanodaya B. Ed. College, pursuant to the recognition granted by NCTE in 2007-2008. Writ Petition was filed by the institution before this Court challenging the action of the State of Maharashtra in not granting permission to the institution and of the University in not granting affiliation to the college. College, pursuant to the recognition granted by NCTE in 2007-2008. Writ Petition was filed by the institution before this Court challenging the action of the State of Maharashtra in not granting permission to the institution and of the University in not granting affiliation to the college. The State Government had filed an affidavit before this Court reiterating its stand that to avoid the problems of unemployment, mal-practices, frustration of trained graduates, the State Government thought it fit that the permission should not be granted for starting new B. Ed. colleges. It was the case of the State of Maharashtra that Hon'ble Chief Minister had sent letter dated 11th July, 2006 to the Hon'ble Minister, Human Resource Development, Government of India. New Delhi requesting that NCTE be directed that they should not grant any recognition for opening of new D. Ed. colleges without deliberation with the State authorities. This Court, relying on the judgment in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya(supra) held that once NCTE has granted recognition to the new college, it was not open for the State Government to withhold the permission on the ground of policy decision and the writ petition was allowed. 12. Mr. Mirza, Advocate for the petitioner, submits that in the academic session 2012-2013 Shriram Dnyan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal was granted recognition by the NCTE but Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, refused to grant affiliation to the institution and the State Government had not included the name of the institution in the list prepared by it for allotting the students through centralised admission process. Shriram Dnyan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal had filed Writ Petition No. 5371 of 2012 before Aurangabad Bench of this Court and had challenged refusal on the part of the University to grant affiliation and action of the State Government in not including the name of the institution in the list prepared by it for allotting students through the centralised admissions process. This Court, by judgment dated 19th July, 2012 allowed the writ petition and directed the University to grant affiliation to the institution within two weeks from the date of judgment. 13. Mr. Mirza, Advocate for petitioner, submits that the issue is again considered by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (3) Mh. LJ. 97, Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P. Mr. 13. Mr. Mirza, Advocate for petitioner, submits that the issue is again considered by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (3) Mh. LJ. 97, Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P. Mr. Mirza has submitted that in spite of settled law and repeated pronouncements by the Apex Court and this Court, the respondents have been adamant and are not granting permission and affiliation in spite of recognition being granted by NCTE. Mr. Mirza submits that the issue being settled by the Apex Court and this Court, the mandamus has to be issued, as prayed for by the petitioners. According to him, the Government Resolution dated 17th October, 2012 is contrary to the mandatory provisions of section 14(6) of the Act of 1993 and in blatant breach of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court and is unsustainable in law and has to be quashed. 14. Ms. Dangre, Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents have opposed the claim of the petitioners. She submits that the judgment in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (supra) was delivered in view of the regulations prevailing at that time. It is the case of the respondents that initially regulations under section 32 of the Act of 1993 were framed in 1995 as National Council for Teacher Education (Application for Recognition, the Manner for Submission. Determination of Conditions for Recognition of Institutions and Permission to Start New Course or Training) Regulations, 1995. In 2002, the NCTE framed “National Council for Teacher Education (Form of Application for Recognition, the Time-limit of Submission of Application, Determination of Norms and Standards for Recognition of Teacher Education Programmes and Permission to Start New Course or Training) Regulation, 2002. These regulations were amended and finally repealed in the year 2005-2006 by the National Council for Teachers Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2005. The 2005 Regulations were repealed by 2007 Regulations. The Additional Government Pleader submits that Regulation Nos. 7(2) and (3) are relevant and the same are reproduced as under:— “7(2): Simultaneously, on receipt of application, a written communication along with a copy of the application form submitted by the institution(s) shall be sent by the office of the Regional Committees to the State Government/UT administration concerned”. The Additional Government Pleader submits that Regulation Nos. 7(2) and (3) are relevant and the same are reproduced as under:— “7(2): Simultaneously, on receipt of application, a written communication along with a copy of the application form submitted by the institution(s) shall be sent by the office of the Regional Committees to the State Government/UT administration concerned”. “7(3): On receipt of the communication, the State Govemment/UT administration concerned shall furnish its recommendations on the applications to the office of the Regional Committee concerned on the applications to the office of the Regional Committee concerned of the National Council for Teacher Education within 60 days from receipt. If the recommendation is negative, the State Govemment/UT administration shall provide detailed reasons/grounds thereof with necessary statistics, which shall be taken into consideration by the Regional Committee concerned while deciding the application. If no communication is received from the State Govemment/UT administration within the stipulated 60 days, it shall be presumed that the State Govemment/UT administration concerned has no recommendation to make”. 15. According to the respondents, as per Regulation No. 7(2) the Regional Committee has to send a copy of the application submitted by the institution (s) along with a written communication to the State Government. It is the submission on behalf of the respondents that according to the Regulation No. 7(3), on receipt of the communication the State Government shall furnish its recommendations on the application to the office of the Regional Committee concerned of the National Council for Teacher Education within 60 days from receipt and if the recommendation is negative, the State Government shall provide detailed reasons/grounds thereof with necessary statistics, which shall be taken into consideration by the Regional Committee concerned while deciding the application. According to the respondent No. 1, in the present case, provisions of Regulation No. 7(3) have not been complied with, as recommendations of the State Government and policy decision of the State Government have not been taken into consideration while granting recognition to the petitioner. The Additional Government Pleader submits that the Supreme Court of India, by judgment in (2011) 3 SCC 238 ,National Council For Teacher Education v. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan has held that the regulations framed for grant of recognition are mandatory and an institution is not entitled to recognition, unless it fulfils the conditions specified in various clauses of the regulations. According to the respondents, NCTE could not have granted recognition to the petitioner's institution overlooking the policy decision of the State Government. 16. The Act of 1993 is made by the Parliament to provide for the establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieving planned and co-ordinated development teacher education system throughout the country, for regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith. In the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (supra), the Apex Court has held that the field is fully and completely occupied by an Act of Parliament and covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII. It is, therefore, not open for the State Legislature to encroach upon the said field. Section 82 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 lays down the procedure for permission for starting new college. Section 83 of the Maharashtra Universities Act 1994 lays down the procedure for affiliation of the new college to the University. In the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya(supra), the Apex Court has held that the provisions of sections 82 and 83 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 would not apply to the institution covered by the Act of 1993. It is held that as per the scheme of the Act of 1993, once recognition has been granted by the NCTE under section 14(6) of the Act of 1993, every university (Examining Body) is under an obligation to grant affiliation to such institution and sections 82 and 83 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 will not apply to such cases. The Apex Court has emphatically laid down that the Parliament can alone exercise the power by making appropriate law and in the circumstances it is not open for the State Government to refuse permission relying on the State Act or policy consideration. In spite of the clear and categorical pronouncement by the Apex Court, the State Government has been making attempts to show its supremacy over the NCTE and to denude powers and authority of NCTE. In view of the settled law, it is not open for the respondents to make recognition order issued by NCTE ineffective and/or redundant. In spite of the clear and categorical pronouncement by the Apex Court, the State Government has been making attempts to show its supremacy over the NCTE and to denude powers and authority of NCTE. In view of the settled law, it is not open for the respondents to make recognition order issued by NCTE ineffective and/or redundant. The respondents have to abide by mandate on section 14(6) of the Act of 1993 and the respondent No. 2 is under an obligation to grant affiliation to the institutions after receiving the recognition order issued by NCTE. 17. The submissions on behalf of the respondents about non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Regulation No. 7(3) are not acceptable. The Additional Government Pleader has not pointed out from the affidavit any specific statement of the respondents that they had not received a copy of the application made by the petitioner from the Regional Committee as provided by Regulation No. 7(2). It is not the case of the respondents, in the affidavit filed before this Court, that the recognition order is bad in law because of alleged non-compliance of the provisions of Regulation 7(3). The oral submission of the Additional Government Pleader in this behalf cannot be accepted, de hors the factual aspect. It is the fact that NCTE has issued recognition order in favour of the petitioner's institution under section 14(3)(a) of the Act of 1993. The Additional Government Pleader, on being asked has submitted that the recognition order issued by the NCTE in favour of the petitioner's institution has not been challenged by the respondents before any Court of law, as was done in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya. Without there being any relevant facts on record and without there being any challenge to the recognition order granted by the NCTE in favour of the petitioner's institution, the submissions on behalf of the respondents about their policy decision, cannot be accepted. 18. In view of the above, writ petitions have to be allowed. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed. The Government Resolution dated 17th October, 2012 is quashed. The Government Resolution dated 17th October, 2012 is declared to be ultra vires the provisions of section 14 of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993. 18. In view of the above, writ petitions have to be allowed. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed. The Government Resolution dated 17th October, 2012 is quashed. The Government Resolution dated 17th October, 2012 is declared to be ultra vires the provisions of section 14 of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993. In all the matters, respondent No. 2-Maharashtra State Council of Educational Research and Training is directed to grant affiliation to the petitioners' D. Ed. Colleges as required by the provisions of section 14(6)(a) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. No costs. Petitions allowed.