Judgment RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. Feeling aggrieved against the inspection report dated 29.03.2011 (Annexure P-12) submitted by the inspection committee of the respondent-University and also order dated 30.05.2011 (Annexure P-13) passed by the respondent-University, withholding the extension of provisional affiliation for the academic session 2011- 12, thereby debarring the petitioner college from participating in the admission process and making admission to B.Ed (Regular) course for the session 2011-12, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned inspection report and subsequent impugned order. Petitioner also seeks a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to rely upon the provisions of the University statutes, Rules and Regulations for the impugned decision and ordinance issued by the respondent-University, debarring the petitioner as the same were not applicable qua the petitioner, in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act 1993 and Rule 8 of the National Council for Teacher Education Rules 1997. Facts first. Petitioner-institute applied to respondent No. 4 and was granted recognition/permission for starting B.Ed course of one year duration with an intake of 100 students, vide order dated 28.09.2007 (Annexure P-1), however, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions, imposed vide order dated 28.09.2007 itself. Pursuant to the permission granted by National Council for Teacher Education respondent No. 4 ('NCTE' for short), petitioner-institute approached the respondent-University for provisional affiliation to the B.Ed. Course with an intake of 100 students for the session 2007-08. This provisional affiliation was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 04.10.2007 (Annexure P-2) subject to fulfillment of certain conditions imposed by the Inspection Committee and other allied conditions as per rules. Thereafter, respondent-University issued show cause notice to the petitioner as to why its provisional affiliation be not withdrawn on the basis of deficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Committee. Petitioner approached this Court by way of C.W.P. No. 15634 of 2009 which was decided by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2010 (Annexure P-3) and order issued by the respondent- University was set aside. When, in pursuance to the order dated 02.02.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by this Court, petitioner approached the respondent-University for granting permission to the students for appearance in the examination of B.Ed. When, in pursuance to the order dated 02.02.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by this Court, petitioner approached the respondent-University for granting permission to the students for appearance in the examination of B.Ed. course for the academic Session 2009-10 and it was denied by the respondent- University, petitioner again approached this Court by way of C.W.P. No. 3998 of 2010. Another writ petition was filed by the students as C.W.P. No. 8588 of 2010. However, these writ petitions came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.10.2010 (Annexure P-4). While passing the order dated 25.05.2010 (Annexure P-4) this Court held that the petitioner college will be entitled to participate in the counselling process and admit the students for next academic session 2010-11. This part of the order dated 25.05.2010 was challenged by the respondent-University by way of LPA No. 1473 of 2010 which was disposed of by the LPA Bench vide order dated 04.07.2011 and the relevant part thereof reads as under. “Learned counsel for the College states that for admissions for the academic session 2010-11, the University itself had given right to the College to participate in the counselling process and the said year is over. Learned counsel for the University states that the College was permitted to make admissions only on account of observations in the impugned order. Once the admissions had already been allowed to be made, as no stay was granted by this Court, no interference is called for with the said process at this stage. It is however, made clear that this order will not be treated as an adjudication of any right of the College to make admissions, which will require adjudication independently whenever necessary. The appeal is disposed of”. Thereafter, the respondent-University inspected the college on 14.07.2010 for the academic Session 2010-11. Some deficiencies were pointed out. Petitioner claimed to have removed the deficiencies. However, respondent-University again constituted an Inspection Committee which inspected the petitioner college on 28.03.2011, as pleaded by the petitioner. The Inspection Committee again pointed out some deficiencies. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 25.04.2011 (Annexure P-5) was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner filed its reply dated 25.05.2011 (Annexure P-6). Petitioner claims that it had appointed seven qualified teachers. However, respondent-University has issued a notification dated 04.11.2009 (Annexure P-7) revising qualification for the post of Principal and Lecturer in Self Financing Colleges of Education for the Session 2009-10. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 25.04.2011 (Annexure P-5) was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner filed its reply dated 25.05.2011 (Annexure P-6). Petitioner claims that it had appointed seven qualified teachers. However, respondent-University has issued a notification dated 04.11.2009 (Annexure P-7) revising qualification for the post of Principal and Lecturer in Self Financing Colleges of Education for the Session 2009-10. University Grants Commission vide its communication (Annexure P-8) issued in September 2010, regarding its decision dated 12.08.2010, providing opportunity of having two more attempts, to the already appointed teachers on ad hoc/contract basis, to pass NET to become eligible in order to continue in their teaching positions. The above said communication (Annexure P-8) issued by the University Grants Commission was circulated by the respondent Civil University to the Principals of Self Financing Colleges of Education, vide communication dated 28.10.2010 (Annexure P-9). Another communication dated 30.12.2010 was issued by the respondent- University vide Annexure P-10, on the subject of revised qualification for the post of Lecturer in the Self Financing Colleges of Education. Petitioner claims to have appointed some teachers whose selection was approved by the respondent-University, vide its communication dated 17.02.2011 (Annexure P-11). In the meantime, the respondent- University issued show cause notice dated 25.04.2011 (Annexure P- 5), on the basis of impugned inspection report dated 29.03.2011 (Annexure P-12). Consequently, the respondent-University passed the impugned order dated 31.05.2011 (Annexure P-13), withholding the extension for provisional affiliation for the Session 2011-12. Hence, this writ petition in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned inspection report dated 29.03.2011 (Annexure P-12) and the impugned order dated 31.03.2011 (Annexure P-13), alleging that the same have been issued in violation of the provisions of law contained in NCTE Act 1993 and NCTE Rules made thereunder. Notice of motion was issued and in compliance thereof written statement on behalf of respondent-University was filed. Thereafter, in compliance of the order dated 05.09.2011 passed by this Court, affidavit dated 06.09.2011 of Ashok Kumar Chauhan, was filed on behalf of the petitioner whereas affidavit, dated 15.09.2011, of Dr. Surinder Deswal, Registrar, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra was filed on behalf of respondent-University. Having been impleaded as party respondent No. 4 vide order dated 21.09.2011 passed by this Court, a short affidavit of Dr. Ram Kishor, Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, was filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. Surinder Deswal, Registrar, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra was filed on behalf of respondent-University. Having been impleaded as party respondent No. 4 vide order dated 21.09.2011 passed by this Court, a short affidavit of Dr. Ram Kishor, Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, was filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned inspection report dated 29.03.2011 (Annexure P-12) and also the impugned order dated 31.05.2011 (Annexure P-13) were not only unreasonable and arbitrary but the same were also without jurisdiction. He further submits that the case of the petitioner was squarely covered by the judgment of this Court at Annexure P-3, vide which earlier writ petition of the petitioner institute was allowed deciding all these issues in favour of the petitioner. He next contended that the petitioner-college has fulfilled all the conditions imposed vide recognition order dated 28.09.2007 (Annexure P-1). He next contended that distance between Radaur and Nachraun was of no consequence and the same was not requirement of law. He submits that petitioner-institute fulfills all the conditions of recognition at Radaur itself where from the college was being run and the facility of infrastructure/space at Nachraun was only an additional one. Petitioner-Institute has appointed duly qualified staff and the Inspection Committee proceeded on an erroneous approach while raising ill-founded objections and deficiencies. He also submits that since the petitioner-institute has all the infrastructure required for running the college, including the qualified staff and other facilities, the respondent-University adopted misconceived and perverse approach while withholding its affiliation on flimsy grounds. He concluded by submitting that since the impugned orders were without jurisdiction, the same may be set aside by allowing the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner also raised an argument in the alternative that since the students were admitted pursuant to the interim order dated 27.09.2011 passed by this Court and roll number of the students were also directed to be issued, permitting them to take the examination, vide order dated 26.06.2012 passed by this Court, the respondent-University may be directed to declare the result of the students. To substantive his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Bhartia Education Society and another vs. State of H.P. and others 2011 (2) SCT 739 and in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. To substantive his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Bhartia Education Society and another vs. State of H.P. and others 2011 (2) SCT 739 and in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of U.P., JT 2012 (12) SC 575, o n the issue that once the recognition has been granted by NCTE, the affiliation has to follow automatically and the respondent-University has no jurisdiction to deny the same. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-university submits that petitioner has glaringly violated not only the terms and conditions, pertaining to the respondent-University which were imposed by respondent No. 4, while granting recognition dated 28.09.2007 (Annexure P-1), but has also not removed very many serious deficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Committee of the University. He further submits that the petitioner was only interested in making money and was not interested in the quality of education or the academic career of the students. He next contended that the infrastructure of the petitioner-institute situated at Radaur, was not part of its application for recognition, moved before respondent No. 4-NCTE. Petitioner has successfully mislead the competent authority while obtaining the recognition (Annexure P-1) which was based on incorrect averments made by the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner has played fraud with respondent No. 4, respondent- University as well as with the students thereby bringing bad name to the education system, only to achieve its sole objective of unjust enrichment. Pattanama (lease deed) was of the land situated at village Nachraun and not that of Radaur where from the petitioner college was being run. The land or building situated at Radaur was never the basis of the application (Annexure P-17) moved by the petitioner seeking recognition from NCTE. He refers to the averments taken by the petitioner itself in earlier writ petition bearing C.W.P. No. 15634 of 2009, wherein the petitioner has virtually admitted the serious discrepancies in the recognition order (Annexure P-1) issued by NCTE. Petitioner also undertook to shift at Nachraun, within prescribed period of three years, from the date of granting recognition to the petitioner-college, in terms of the 2005 Regulation of NCTE. In such a situation, respondent No. 4 was duty bound to reconsider its decision granting recognition to the petitioner which was based on misrepresentation of facts. Petitioner also undertook to shift at Nachraun, within prescribed period of three years, from the date of granting recognition to the petitioner-college, in terms of the 2005 Regulation of NCTE. In such a situation, respondent No. 4 was duty bound to reconsider its decision granting recognition to the petitioner which was based on misrepresentation of facts. Why the students should be made to suffer by running between these two places at Radaur and Nachraun only because the petitioner-institute was not having sufficient infrastructure, as required under the relevant provisions of law, at one place. Distance between Radaur and Nachraun was three kilometers, as per para 4.3 of the application of the petitioner (Annexure P-17). He emphatically controverted the argument that since the recognition was granted by the NCTE, the affiliation was to follow automatically. He submits that the order passed by this Court vide Annexure P-3 does not help the petitioner, in view of the changed circumstances of the present case. Learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that there was no Principal with the petitioner-college at the time of inspection. The qualified staff was not having 6 months stay which was the mandatory requirement in view of Regulation 36 (Annexure R-1/3). Learned counsel also submits that under these circumstances the petitioner-college was not entitled for affiliation without removing the serious deficiencies pointed out in the inspection report. The writ petition was devoid of any merit and was liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, raised hereinabove, learned counsel for the University relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyala and Ors. Vs. Subhash Rahangdale and Ors AIR 2012 SC 1097 , Division Bench judgments of this Court in Saint Solider Educational Socieity, Janakpuri New Delhi Vs. State of Punjab and others 2009 (2) SCT 196, Prashikshit Adhyapak Sangh Vs. State of Haryana and others CWP No. 20056 of 2009 decided on 18.09.2013 and Kurukshetra University Vs. Raj Rajeshwari College of Education & others LPA No. 1470 of 2010 decided on 04.07.2011. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is without any substance and liable to be dismissed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is without any substance and liable to be dismissed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. The question of law that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the impugned inspection report dated 29.03.2011 (Annexure P-12) and the consequent order dated 30.05.2011 (Annexure P-13) are without jurisdiction, being in alleged violation of the provisions of law contained in the Act of 1993 and the Rules made thereunder. It is the admitted position on record that recognition/permission for starting the B.Ed. course of one year duration, with intake of 100 students, was granted to the petitioner by respondent No. 4-NCTE, vide order dated 28.09.2007 (Annexure P- 1) with certain conditions specified therein. One of the conditions, as specified in Para 4 of the order (Annexure P-1) reads as under:- “Further, the recognition is subject to fulfillment of all such other requirement as may be prescribed by other regulatory bodies like UGC and the State Government etc. wherever applicable.” A copy of order (Annexure P-1) was also sent to respondent-University. Consequently, provisional affiliation was granted to the petitioner by the respondent-University, vide order dated 04.10.2007 (Annexure P-2), to run the B.Ed. course with an intake of 100 seats for the Session 2007-08, subject to the fulfillment of conditions imposed by the Inspection Committee and other allied conditions as per rules. Thus, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the recognition is granted to the petitioner by NCTE, the affiliation from respondent-University has to follow automatically, is misplaced and cannot be accepted. The reason is obvious that above said condition imposed in the recognition order-Annexure P-1 itself makes it clear that respondent-university being the regulatory body, was entitled to ask the petitioner to fulfill the requisite conditions for affiliation. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any relevant provision of law to substantiate his argument to the effect that the respondent-University was bound to grant affiliation or it was not entitled to withhold the provisional affiliation already granted, simply because the recognition has been granted to the petitioner by NCTE vide Annexure P-1. In this view of the matter, the impugned inspection report having been prepared on the basis of the actual and physical inspection carried out at the site, cannot be said to be arbitrary in any manner. A bare perusal of the inspection report would show that very many deficiencies have been pointed out; that Principal of the petitioner-college was not available, signatures of the Principal were found to be different on three different documents inspected by the Inspection Committee. Faculty members were not having the requisite stay in the petitioner college, i.e. for six months, as required under the relevant provisions of law. One of the lecturers could not even tell the nomenclature of the subject which was being taught by her, even the furniture available in the class rooms and multipurpose hall were inadequate. The impugned inspection report is a self-contained document and no illegality has been found therein. Further, it is an exclusive domain of the experts of their subjects and it will not be appropriate at the hands of this Court to substitute the report of Inspection Committee, by its opinion as this Court is not having the privilege of being an expert on the subject. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the Inspection Committee and respondent No. 3 were well within their jurisdiction to carry out the inspection of the petitioner-college so as to satisfy itself whether the petitioner was fulfilling all the requirements for extending the provisional affiliation. Thus, the impugned inspection report is not without jurisdiction. Pursuant to the inspection report (Annexure P-12), a show cause notice dated 28.04.2011 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent-University, to show cause as to why disaffiliation proceedings be not initiated, for the non-fulfillment of mandatory requirements/conditions laid down by NCTE, for ensuring optimum standard of teachers' education. In response to the show cause notice, petitioner filed its reply Annexure P-6 dated 16.05.2011. However, the reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory, thereby leaving the respondent-University with no other option except, to pass the impugned order dated 13.05.2011 (Annexure P-13) withholding the provisional affiliation and debarring the petitioner-college from participating in the admission process and making the admission to the B.Ed. (Regular) course for the session 2011-12. However, the reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory, thereby leaving the respondent-University with no other option except, to pass the impugned order dated 13.05.2011 (Annexure P-13) withholding the provisional affiliation and debarring the petitioner-college from participating in the admission process and making the admission to the B.Ed. (Regular) course for the session 2011-12. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality either in the impugned inspection report or in the impugned order. However, he laid emphasis that the case of the petitioner was covered by the order dated 02.02.2010 passed by this Court vide Annexure P-3. A reading of the order Annexure P-3 would show that the deficiencies pointed out by respondent No. 3-Inspection Committee, were not the subject matter of consideration before this Court, at the time of passing of order (Annexure P-3). In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that the respondent-University committed no error of law while passing the impugned order (Annexure P-13), based on the inspection report (Annexure P-12). So far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, there is no dispute about the law laid down therein, however, when these judgments are read carefully, the ratio thereof goes against the petitioner. The first judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Chairman, Bhartia Education Society (supra), makes it clear that the purpose of recognition and affiliation are different. Affiliating University and the examining bodies cannot be said to be only rubber-stamping authorities in this regard. The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 15 and 17 of this judgment, which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:- “The purpose of recognition and affiliation are different. In the context of NCTE Act, affiliation enables and permits an institution to send its students to participate in the public examinations conducted by the Examining Body and secure the qualification in the nature of degrees, diplomas, certificates. On the other hand, recognition is the licence to the institution to offer a course or training in teacher education. In the context of NCTE Act, affiliation enables and permits an institution to send its students to participate in the public examinations conducted by the Examining Body and secure the qualification in the nature of degrees, diplomas, certificates. On the other hand, recognition is the licence to the institution to offer a course or training in teacher education. Prior to NCTE Act, in the absence of an apex body to plan and coordinate development of teacher education system, respective regulation and proper maintenance of the norms and standards in the teacher education system, including grant of recognition were largely exercised by the State Government and Universities/Boards. After the enactment of NCTE Act, the functions of NCTE as recognizing authority and the Examining Bodies as affiliating authorities became crystallized, through their functions overlap on several issues. NCTE Act recognizes the role of examining bodies in their sphere of activity. Sub-Section (6) of Section 14 no doubt mandates every examining body to grant affiliation to the institution on receipt of the order of NCTE granting recognition to such institution. This only means that recognition is a condition precedent for affiliation and that the examining body does not have any discretion to refuse affiliation with reference to any of the factors which have been considered by the NCTE while granting recognition. For example, NCTE is required to satisfy itself about the adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, and laboratory required for proper functioning of an institution for a course of training in teacher education. Therefore, when recognition is granted by NCTE, it is implied that NCTE has satisfied itself on those aspects. Consequently, the examining body may not refuse affiliation on the ground that the institution does not have adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff or laboratory required for proper functioning of the institution. But this does not mean that the examining body cannot require compliance with its own requirements in regard to eligibility of candidates for admission to course or manner of admission of students or other areas falling within the sphere of the State Government and/or the examining body. Even the order of recognition dated 17.7.2000 issued by NCTE specifically contemplates the need for the institution to comply with and fulfil the requirement of the affiliating body and State Government, in addition to the conditions of NCTE. Even the order of recognition dated 17.7.2000 issued by NCTE specifically contemplates the need for the institution to comply with and fulfil the requirement of the affiliating body and State Government, in addition to the conditions of NCTE. We extract below conditions 4, 5 & 6 of the order of recognition issued by NCTE in this behalf: “4. The admission to the approved course shall be given only to those candidates who are eligible as per the regulations governing the course and in the manner laid down by the affiliating University/State Government. 5. Tuition fee and other fees will be charged from the students as per the norms of the affiliating University/State Government till such time NCTE regulations in respect of fee structure come into force. 6. Curriculum transaction, including practical work/activities, should be organized as per the NCTE norms and standards for the course and the requirements of the affiliating University/Examining body.” The examining body can therefore impose its own requirements in regard to eligibility of students for admission to a course in addition to those prescribed by NCTE. The State Government and the examining body may also regulate the manner of admissions. As a consequence, if there is any irregularity in admissions or violation of the eligibility criteria prescribed by the examining body or any irregularity with reference to any of the matters regulated and governed by the examining body, the examining body may cancel the affiliation irrespective of the fact that the institution continues to enjoy the recognition of the NCTE. Sub-section (6) of Section 14 cannot be interpreted in a manner so s to make the process of affiliation, an automatic rubber-stamping consequent upon recognition, without any kind of discretion in the examining body to examine whether the institution deserves affiliation or not, independent of the recognition. An institution requires the recognition of NCTE as well as affiliation with the examination body, before it can offer a course or training in teacher education or admit students to such course or training. Be that as it may.” The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Bhartia Education Society (supra) was reiterated in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra). Be that as it may.” The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Bhartia Education Society (supra) was reiterated in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra). The relevant observations made in para 57 and 58 of this judgment, are as under:- “Under Section 14 and particularly in terms of Section 14(3) (a) of the Act, the NCTE is required to grant or refuse recognition to an institute. It has been empowered to impose such conditions as it may consider fit and proper keeping in view the legislative intent and object in mind. In terms of Section 14(6) of the Act, the examining body shall grant affiliation to the institute where recognition has been granted. In other words, granting recognition is the basic requirement for grant of affiliation. It cannot be said that affiliation is insignificant or a mere formality on the part of the examining body. It is the requirement of law that affiliation should be granted by the affiliating body in accordance with the prescribed procedure and upon proper application of mind. Recognition and affiliation are expressions of distinct meaning and consequences. In the case of Chairman, Bhartia Education Society v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. [ 2011 (4) SCC 527 ] , this Court held that the purpose of recognition and affiliation is different, In the context of the Act, affiliation enables and permits an institution to send its students to participate in public examinations conducted by the examining body and secure the qualification in the nature of degrees, diploma and certificates. On the other hand, recognition is the licence to the institution to offer a course or training in teaching education. The Court also emphasized that the affiliating body, examining body does not have any discretion to refuse affiliation with reference to any of the factors which have been considered by the NCTE while granting recognition. The examining body can impose conditions in relation to its own requirements. These aspects are (a) eligibility of students for admission; (b) conduct of examinations; (c ) the manner in which the prescribed courses should be completed; and (d) to see that the conditions imposed by the NCTE are complied with. The examining body can impose conditions in relation to its own requirements. These aspects are (a) eligibility of students for admission; (b) conduct of examinations; (c ) the manner in which the prescribed courses should be completed; and (d) to see that the conditions imposed by the NCTE are complied with. Despite the fact that recognition itself covers the larger precepts of affiliation, still the affiliating body is not to grant affiliation automatically but must exercise its discretion fairly and transparently while ensuring that conditions of the law of the University and the functions of the affiliating body should be complementary to the recognition of NCTE and ought not to be in derogation thereto.” A Division Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 04.07.2011 passed in LPA No. 1470 of 2010, reproduced above, has made it clear that the order will not be treated as any adjudication of any right of college (petitioner herein) to make admission, which will require adjudication independently whenever necessary. In identical circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Saint Solider Educational Society (supra), observed as under. “The said case is not applicable in the facts of the present case. In the present case, NCTE has granted recognition subject to fulfillment of all such other requirement, as may be prescribed by the other Regulatory Body, such as UGC etc, wherever applicable. The State Government granted permission subject to condition that norms of staff are fulfilled before admission. The University is a Regulatory Body in respect of conduct of examination. Therefore, in terms of Para 4 of permission granted by NCTE and the permission granted by the State Government, the University was duty bound to examine the fulfillment of requirements as per norms fixed by the NCTE itself. As per norms reproduced above, the petitioner has seven members on regular teaching faculty, whereas other seven have been engaged on ad hoc basis. Such undisputed fact shows that the norms fixed by the NCTE itself have not been satisfied by the petitioners. The University or the State Government has not refused the permission but, after examining the norms and standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme framed by the NCTE itself, it has found that the teacher faculty is not suitable. Such power has been exercised in terms of the liberty granted by the NCTE to the State Government and the University. The University or the State Government has not refused the permission but, after examining the norms and standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme framed by the NCTE itself, it has found that the teacher faculty is not suitable. Such power has been exercised in terms of the liberty granted by the NCTE to the State Government and the University. The University, as examining body, is, thus, justified in refusing permission till such time proper teaching faculty is engaged by the petitioner as in the absence of proper teaching faculty, the standard expected in respect of imparting of teachers education is likely to be suffered. In view of the above, we do not find that the action of the University in refusing to grant affiliation suffers from any patent illegality or lacks jurisdiction, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.” Similar view was taken by another Division Bench of this Court in case of Prashikshit Adhyapak Sangh (supra). Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adrash Shiksha Mahavidyalaya and Ors (supra), after having a detailed discussion on the subject, laid down the law, as under:- “As a sequel to the above discussion, we hold that the impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court. We also reiterate that: (i) The Regional Committees established under Section 20 of the 1993 Act are duty bound to ensure that no private institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education is granted recognition unless it satisfies the conditions specified in Section 14(3)(a) of the 1993 Act and Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations. Likewise, no recognized institution intending to start any new course or training in teacher education shall be granted permission unless it satisfies the conditions specified in Section 15(3)(a) of the 1993 Act and the relevant Regulations. (ii) The State Government/UT Administration, to whom a copy of the application made by an institution for grant of recognition is sent in terms of Regulation 7(2) of the Regulations, is under an obligation to make its recommendations within the time specified in Regulation 7(3) of the Regulations. (iii) While granting recognition, the Regional Committees are required to give due weightage to the recommendations made by the State Government/UT Administration and keep in view the observations made by this Court in St. (iii) While granting recognition, the Regional Committees are required to give due weightage to the recommendations made by the State Government/UT Administration and keep in view the observations made by this Court in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, NCTE (2003) 3 SCC 321 and National Council for Teacher Education v. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan, which have been extracted in the earlier part of this judgment. (iv) The recognition granted by the Regional Committees under Section 14(3)(a) of the 1993 Act read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations and permission granted under Section 15(3)(a) read with the relevant Regulations shall operate prospectively, i.e., from the date of communication of the order of recognition or permission, as the case may be. (v) The recognition can be refused by the Regional Committee under Section 14(3)(b), in the first instance, when an application for recognition is made by an institution. Likewise, permission can be refused under Section 15(3) (b). (vi) If the recognition is refused under Section 14(3)(b) after affording reasonable opportunity to the applicant to make a written representation, the concerned institution is required to discontinue the course or training from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order. (vii) Once the recognition is granted, the same can be withdrawn only under Section 17(1) if there is a contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules, or the Regulations, or orders made therein, or any condition subject to which recognition was granted under Section 14(3)(a) or permission was granted under Section 15(3)(a). (viii) The withdrawal of recognition becomes effective from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the order of withdrawal. (ix) Once the recognition is withdrawn under Section 17(1), the concerned institution is required to discontinue the course or training in teacher education and the examining body is obliged to cancel the affiliation. The effect of withdrawal of the recognition is that the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to the course or training undertaken at such institution is not to be treated as valid qualification for the purpose of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University or in any educational body aided by the Central or the State Government. The effect of withdrawal of the recognition is that the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to the course or training undertaken at such institution is not to be treated as valid qualification for the purpose of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University or in any educational body aided by the Central or the State Government. (x) In view of the mandate of Section 16, no examining body, as defined in Section 2(d) of the 1993 Act, shall grant affiliation unless the applicant has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee under Section 14 or permission for starting a new course or training under Section 15. (xi) While granting affiliation, the examining body shall be free to demand rigorous compliance of the conditions contained in the statute like the University Act or the State Education Board Act under which it was established or the guidelines/norms which may have been laid down by the concerned examining body. (xii) No institution shall admit any student to a teacher training course or programme unless it has obtained recognition under Section 14 or permission under Section 15, as the case may be. (xiii) While making admissions, every recognized institution is duty bound to strictly adhere to para 3.1 to 3.3 of the Norms and Standards for Secondary/Pre-School Teacher Education Programme contained in Appendix-1 to the Regulations. (xiv) If any institution admits any student in violation of the Norms and Standards laid down by the NCTE, then the Regional Committee shall initiate action for withdrawal of the recognition of such institution and pass appropriate order after complying with the rules of natural justice. (xv) The students admitted by unrecognized institution and institutions which are not affiliated to any examining body are not entitled to appear in the examination conducted by the examining body or any other authorised agency. (xvi) The students admitted by the recognized institutions otherwise than through the entrance/eligibility test conducted in accordance with the admission procedure contained in para 3.3 of Appendix-1 of the Regulations are also not entitled to appear in the examination conducted by the examining body or any other authorised agency. (xvii) The NCTE shall issue direction for mandatory inspection of recognized institutions on periodical basis and all the Regional Committees are duty bound to take action in accordance with those directions. (xvii) The NCTE shall issue direction for mandatory inspection of recognized institutions on periodical basis and all the Regional Committees are duty bound to take action in accordance with those directions. (xviii) In future, the High Courts shall not entertain prayer for interim relief by unrecognized institutions and the institutions which have not been granted affiliation by the examining body and/or the students admitted by such institutions for permission to appear in the examination or for declaration of the result of examination. This would also apply to the recognized institutions if they admit students otherwise than in accordance with the procedure contained in Appendix-1 of the Regulations.” Respectively following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Bhartia Education Society and another (supra) and also the Division Bench of this Court in Saint Solider Educational Society, Janakpuri New Delhi (supra), it is held that respondent-University neither acted without jurisdiction, nor the impugned order withholding the extension in provisional affiliation suffer from any patent legality or perversity. However, since NCTE-respondent No. 4 has granted the recognition to the petitioner-college at Radaur and petitioner has undertaken to shift at Nachraun within the prescribed period of three years from the date of granting recognition to the petitioner-college, in terms of 2005 Regulations of NCTE but has not shifted to village Nachraun so far, it would be appropriate that this aspect is looked into and appropriate action is taken by NCTE. Keeping in view the material aspect noted above, NCTE -respondent No. 4 is directed to look into this aspect of the matter, depute its inspection team to visit the premises of the petitioner at village Nachraun so as to satisfy itself whether the recognition order dated 28.09.2007 was issued under some bona fide wrong impression and whether it was required to be reconsidered passing an appropriate order, afresh, in accordance with law. It shall be verified whether the petitioner owns sufficient land for running the college at Nachraun and what was the factual position in this regard on 28.09.2007, when the recognition was granted to the petitioner, besides whether the petitioner fulfills all the requirements under the provisions of NCTE Act. NCTE is further directed to complete its exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. NCTE is further directed to complete its exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. So far as the students admitted pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court and also allowed to take the examination in compliance of order dated 27.09.2011 followed by another interim order dated 29.06.2012, are concerned, the respondent-University is directed to declare their result. This direction is being issued in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamla Shankar Vs. Director, Board of Technical Edu., Kanpur 1995 (4) S.C.T. 621. The result of the students admitted in compliance of the orders passed by this Court, shall be declared within a period of one month. However, it is also made clear that if any student admitted by the petitioner-college, even pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court feels aggrieved on account of any prejudice having been caused to him/her, such student(s) shall be entitled to seek appropriate amount of compensation from the petitioner, in accordance with law. No other argument was raised. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and without any substance, thus, it may fail. No case of interference has been made out. Resultantly, subject to the aforesaid directions issued to the NCTE and the respondent-University, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.