Judgment : Undisputedly, petitioner institution was granted affiliation by the National Council for Teacher Education, Regional Office to run B.Ed. course vide order dated 31.7.2012. As per Section 14 (6) of the NCTE Act, if recognition is granted by the Regional Office of NCTE, affiliation by the University shall follow. 2. In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that respondent no. 2 is not granting affiliation to the petitioner despite moving appropriate application and despite the fact that petition institution has complete faculty and has already been granted recognition by the NCTE. 3. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2/ University submits that petitioner earlier applied for the affiliation with the Uttarakhand Technical University for the Session 2012-13 and affiliation has not been granted as yet for the academic Session 2012-13, therefore, after the creation of the University i.e. Respondent No. 2, affiliation cannot be granted for the subsequent academic session i.e. 2013-14. He has placed reliance on the letter dated 20.11.2013 issued by the Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand. 4. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P. reported in (2013) 2 SCC 617 , in paragraph nos. 70 and 71 has held as under: “70. Under Section 14 and particularly in terms of Section 14 (3) (a) of the Act, 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 s the basis 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 Bhartiya Education Society v. State of H.P. this Court held that : (SCC p. 534, para 19) “10. The purpose of ‘recognition’ and ‘affiliation’ is different. Recognition and affiliation are expressions of distinct meaning and consequences. In Bhartiya Education Society v. State of H.P. this Court held that : (SCC p. 534, para 19) “10. The purpose of ‘recognition’ and ‘affiliation’ is different. In the context of the NCTE 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, diplomas 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 affiliation body/examining body does not have any discretion to refuse affiliation with reference to any of the factors which have been considered by NCTE while granting recognition. 71. 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 NCTE are complied with. Despite the fact that recognition itself covers the large 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.” 5. In view of the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court, as reproduced hereinbefore, the examining body can impose conditions in relation to its own requirement for eligibility of students for admission; conduct of examinations; the manner in which the prescribed courses should be completed and to see that the conditions imposed by NCTE are complied with. 6. Having perused Section 17 of the NCTE Act, I am of the view that recognition so granted by the NCTE can only be revoked/cancelled by the NCTE and if the institution is fulfilling the conditions imposed by the examining body, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra), ordinarily affiliation cannot be refused by the examining body/University, if recognition granted by the NCTE is in force. 7. 7. In my considered opinion, if State Government or University finds certain shortcoming in the faculty of the institution or finds that institution is violating the provisions of the NCTE Act or conditions of the recognition, State Government or University may make complaint to NCTE, whereupon appropriate decision can only be taken by NCTE for cancelling/withdrawing of recognition under Section 17 of the Act. However, State Government cannot issue any direction for non-grant of the affiliation or for cancellation of the recognition. Therefore, order passed by the State Government dated 20.11.2013, on the face of it, is without jurisdiction and should be treated as non est. 8. Undisputedly, respondent no. 2 University came into existence on 2.5.2013, therefore, appropriate decision has to be taken by respondent no. 2 on the question of grant of affiliation. In my opinion, after creation of respondent no. 2 University, Uttarakhand Technical University is not competent to act as an examining body for B.Ed. Course. 9. Undisputedly, in Writ Petition No. 729 of 2014 (M/S), decided on 10.4.2014, a mandamus was issued to the Uttarakhand Technical University to grant affiliation to the petitioner institution for the academic session of 2012-13 forthwith. 10. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Respondent no. 2 is directed to pass appropriate order on the affiliation to the petitioner in view of the observations made hereinbefore, preferably within four weeks from today. 11. CLMA No. 14290 of 2013 also stands disposed of accordingly.