Judgment : Shaffiaue. T. This writ petition is filed in the form of a public interest litigation for quashing the decision taken by Southern Regional Committee (for short 'SRC') of National Council for Teacher Education (for short NCTE) and for consequential reliefs. The impugned decision at SI. No. 77 of Ext. P9, which reads as under: "In view of the directive given by the NCTE, and with reference to the undertaking given by the Government of Kerala, in relaxation of the prescribed norms and standards; the recognition given to the ten Teacher Education Centres of University of Kerala is continued and the University is given time till 2015-2016 to remove the deficiencies in reference failing which, without further notice, the recognition given will be withdrawn. " 2. The short facts of the case would disclose that the petitioner claiming to be a pro bono publico filed W.P (C) No. 16187/2012 inter alia alleging that the B.Ed, training colleges conducted by the University of Kerala (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') is without recognition from the NCTE. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the aforesaid decision, which is impugned herein, was placed on record by which it was informed before this Court that the SRC of NCTE has taken a decision to relax the prescribed norms and standards for the aforesaid institutions and the recognition given to the ten Teacher Education Centers of the University is continued. The University was given time till 20152016 to remove the deficiencies. Though it was contended that such a decision is contrary to the provisions of Section 14 of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred as the Act) since the petitioner had filed a separate writ petition, the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed. It was further mentioned that all contentions pertaining to the decision of the NCTE to continue the B.Ed, centres of the University are kept open. 3. In this writ petition, it is contended that Ext. P9 decision is contrary to Section 14(3) of the Act. It is contended that no power is available with the SRC of NCTE to relax any of the conditions prescribed under the statute. 3. In this writ petition, it is contended that Ext. P9 decision is contrary to Section 14(3) of the Act. It is contended that no power is available with the SRC of NCTE to relax any of the conditions prescribed under the statute. Specific reference is made to clause 12 of the Regulations, which inter alia gives power only to the Chairperson of the NCTE to relax any of the provisions of the regulations in respect of any clause or category of institutions in the State and subject to conditions as may be specified in the order. Such a decision has to be subject to ratification by the Council as well. The contention is that in the absence of any such relaxation made by the Chairperson of the National Council, the SRC had no jurisdiction to make relaxation as evident from the decision at Ext. P9 and therefore any such relaxation granted is bad in law and for that reason, the respondent University is not entitled to continue the course which they have started pursuant to the aforesaid decision. The petitioner also contends that the said decision is the outcome of bias and is issued at the instance of K.A. Hashim, who was the previous Registrar of Kerala University and a member of SRC, which considered the claim of the University. 4. A statement is filed by the 1 respondent State of Kerala, inter alia stating that the University started 4 B.Ed. Colleges in the year 1990 at Alappuzha, Kollam, Adoor and Thiruvananthapuram. In the year 1994, the University started 4 more colleges at Mavelikkara, Kulakkada, Anchal and Olathanni. In 1998, another 2 colleges were started at Kayamkulam and Kaniyapuram. Colleges at Olathanni and Kaniyapuram are presently functioning at Nedumangad and Kariavattom respectively. According to the 1 respondent, these colleges were established by the University to disseminate and impart Teacher Education to students of the lower strata of the society who are unable to secure admissions to other institutions on account of financial and social backwardness. It is stated that recognition was granted by the NCTE to 6 colleges, viz. Alappuzha Kollam, Adoor, Thiruvananthapuram, Kulakkada and Nedumangad. But recognition was not granted for the colleges at Kunnam (Mavelikkara), Kayamkulam, Kaniyapuram and Anchal. 5. However, in the year 2004, all the 10 colleges were granted recognition as per letter dated 15.7.2004. It is stated that recognition was granted by the NCTE to 6 colleges, viz. Alappuzha Kollam, Adoor, Thiruvananthapuram, Kulakkada and Nedumangad. But recognition was not granted for the colleges at Kunnam (Mavelikkara), Kayamkulam, Kaniyapuram and Anchal. 5. However, in the year 2004, all the 10 colleges were granted recognition as per letter dated 15.7.2004. NCTE had withdrawn the recognition as per letter dated 15.7.2009, against which the University preferred an appeal, which came to be rejected. The University filed 10 writ petitions before this Court and by judgment dated 17.10.2009 (Ext. P4), this Court directed NCTE to treat the University Centers as approved Centers for the year 2010-2011, leaving it open to the NCTE to recall approval, if any Center does not make up the facilities pointed out by the NCTE in terms of the revised orders to be issued from the academic year 2011-2012 onwards. 6. NCTE conducted a further inspection on 24.2.2012 and by its communication dated 4.3.2012, a show cause notice was issued to the University to rectify certain deficiencies. It is stated that all the defects which were to be rectified at the college level, were rectified by the respective colleges. Those were, setting up of Educational Lab, Technology Labs, Psychological labs, Language Labs, Physical Education Labs etc. The other common defects were with reference to appointment of qualified Principal, appointment of staff on regular basis, proof of payment of salary, approval of staff list by the University etc. It is inter alia stated that persons having Ph.D. have been appointed as Principal in all 10 B.Ed. Colleges, disbursement of salary to teachers has been made through cheques since the month of January, 2013 onwards and staff list approved by the University has been forwarded to SRC of NCTE in July, 2013 and latest approved staff list had been submitted before the NCTE visiting team. According to the Government, the only remaining defect to be rectified is appointment of teachers on regular basis and fixation of pay scale for which concurrence of the Government is necessary. Further, it is indicated that around 4000 candidates have applied for B.Ed. Degree Course and the Course for the academic year 2013-2014 commenced from 1.11.2013. Closing down such institutions would deliver a severe blow to the student community. Further, it is indicated that around 4000 candidates have applied for B.Ed. Degree Course and the Course for the academic year 2013-2014 commenced from 1.11.2013. Closing down such institutions would deliver a severe blow to the student community. It is further indicated that the fee collected by such colleges is 25% less than the fees collected by the private self financing colleges. 7. Further, it is stated that in the interest of student community, Government approached the NCTE at its SRC for taking steps to submit the report of NCTE findings before the High Court as directed by the High Court. Government of Kerala has also requested NCTE to grant 3 years' time to the University to rectify the deficiencies pointed out by the NCTE. It is pursuant to such a request that the SRC in its 254^ meeting decided to issue directions relaxing the prescribed norms and standards and recognition was given to all the 10 Teacher Education Centers of the University. It is therefore submitted that once recognition has been granted, there is no reason for the petitioner to challenge the said decision. 8. Counter affidavit is filed by the 3rc* respondent University inter alia contending that the petitioner has no public interest in the above litigation. According to them, there is no bona fides in filing the writ petition and the same is not maintainable. It is also contended that the writ petition is motivated with some private interest as the petitioner is only concentrating on the alleged violation of B.Ed Colleges started by the University of Kerala. 9. Is it further contended that in Ext. R3(a), which was produced by the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 16187/2012, a list of institutions whose recognition was withdrawn by the NCTE is annexed, which includes few B.Ed Centers coming under Calicut University and M.G. University. According to the respondent, if the petitioner was really aggrieved by the functioning of the B.Ed Centers, it is not known, why no action is sought against such institutions. The respondent denies the fact that there is violation of any of the statutory provisions under Section 14 of the Act. It is inter alia contended that a conscious decision has been taken by the SRC to relax the norms and permit continuation of recognition in view of the fact that most of the deficiencies pointed out by the NCTE had been complied with. It is inter alia contended that a conscious decision has been taken by the SRC to relax the norms and permit continuation of recognition in view of the fact that most of the deficiencies pointed out by the NCTE had been complied with. It is further contended that the defect now existing is regarding appointment of teachers on a regular basis and fixation of pay scale to the teachers, which can be done only with the concurrence of the Government. It is further pointed out that in Ext. P4 judgment, this Court had observed that temporary appointment of qualified hands by the University should be accepted as sufficient compliance for the time being and therefore that being the only deficiency presently available, there was justification on the part of the SRC to have permitted continuance of the recognition. 10. A statement is filed by the 2nc* respondent inter alia stating that an application under Section 14 (1) of the Act was submitted to the SRC in the year 2004 and recognition was granted on 13.7.2004 for the Academic Year 2004-05 onwards with an annual intake of 165 students subject fulfilment of certain conditions. Since it was noticed in the performance appraisal report that the Centers did not fulfil several conditions, notice was issued on 22.9.2007 to all the 10 University Centers. The matter was considered by SRC and it was decided to conduct an inspection. On the basis of the report of the visiting team, show cause notices were again issued on 3.4.2009 pointing out various deficiencies. Thereafter, by order dated 15.7.2009, recognition was withdrawn from the academic year 2009-2010. This order came to be challenged by the University and it resulted in Ext. P4 judgment. By virtue of the said judgment, NCTE had to treat the Centers as approved and recognised for the academic year 2010-2011. Pursuant to the said judgment, SRC conducted an inspection of all the 10 University Centres and after considering the report of the visiting team and other documentary evidence, again notice was issued to 10 University Centres pointing out certain deficiencies. They submitted that majority of the defects had been cured and further time was requested to cure the remaining defects. Pursuant to the said judgment, SRC conducted an inspection of all the 10 University Centres and after considering the report of the visiting team and other documentary evidence, again notice was issued to 10 University Centres pointing out certain deficiencies. They submitted that majority of the defects had been cured and further time was requested to cure the remaining defects. In the mean time, as per order dated 4.9.2013 in W.P(C) No. 16187/2012, this Court had directed NCTE to visit the 10 Centers and report back regarding the progress they have made in relation to curing of defects enumerated by them in the affidavit filed on 18.7.2013. An interim direction was also issued not to proceed with the admission until then. The visiting team of SRC conducted inspection in the 10 Centres between 15.10.2013 to 19.10.2013 and submitted their report. It is in the mean time, the Government undertook to ensure compliance of norms and standards by the Centers within three years as per their letter dated 26.10.2013 (Annexure R2(a)). The SRC in their meeting held on 25.10.2013 to 27.10.2013, after considering the report of the visiting team and the letter of undertaking dated 26.10.2013, issued directions to continue the recognition given to the 10 Teacher Education Centres in relaxation of the prescribed norms and standards. The extract of the minutes of the meeting held on 25.10.2013 is produced as Annexure R2(b), which reads as under: "LETTER OF STATE GOVERNMEMNT OF KERALA REGARDING 10 UNIVERSITY CENTRES OF KERALA UNIVERSITY. An e-mail is received by this office on 26^ October2013 from Sri. S. Ajikumaran, Addl. Secretary enclosing a letter No. 33063/B4/2013/H.Edn dated 26.10.2013 of Dr. K.M. Abraham, Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Higher Education (B) Dept. Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala regarding grant of recognition to Kerala University Colleges of Teacher Education (copy enclosed). Dr. K.M. Abraham, Addl. Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Kerala has requested to take up immediate steps to submit the report of the NCTE findings of the team conducted before the Hon 'ble High Court of Kerala when it is came up for hearing during this week. Dr. K.M. Abraham, Addl. Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Kerala has requested to take up immediate steps to submit the report of the NCTE findings of the team conducted before the Hon 'ble High Court of Kerala when it is came up for hearing during this week. He has further stated that "as the University of Kerala had taken steps to rectify the defects pointed out by NCTE in a time bound manner, the Government of Kerala will take up immediate steps to rectify the defects pointed out by the NCTE within 3 years by the University of Kerala. If the University fails to comply with the defects pointed out by the NCTE, the NCTE can pursue action in accordance with their regulations. Hence, I request that the NCTE may consider the request made by the University of Kerala to go ahead with the admission procedures to B.Ed, courses in the 10 University College of Teacher Education of Kerala University from the academic year 2013-2014. Hence, in continuation to the agenda submitted regarding Visiting team reports of 10 Kerala University Centers, the letter dated 26.10.2013 received from the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Kerala. The Committee considered the matter, decided that, in view of the directive given by the NCTE, and with reference to the undertaking given by the Government of Kerala, (Letter No.33063/B4/2013/Higher Education, dated Thiruvananthapuram, 26.10.2013 from the Additional Chief Secretary to Government) in relaxation of the prescribed norms and standards, the recognition given to the ten Teacher Education Centres of University of Kerala is continued and the University is given time till 2015-16 to remove the deficiencies in reference failing which, without further notice, the recognition given will be withdrawn." Therefore, according to them, it is after considering the report of the visiting team and on the basis of letter issued by the Government of Kerala that such a decision had been taken. 11. Reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner producing Exts. Pll and PI2. Ext. Pll is an answer given by NCTE, SRC, enclosing copy of letter dated 12.9.2013 issued by the Principal Secretary, NCTE. 11. Reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner producing Exts. Pll and PI2. Ext. Pll is an answer given by NCTE, SRC, enclosing copy of letter dated 12.9.2013 issued by the Principal Secretary, NCTE. The said letter indicates that the competent authority, NCTE has decided to relax the procedure and infrastructural requirement of Teacher Education Programmes proposed to be set up/run by the "Central Universities" under clause 12 of NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009, for a maximum period of 3 years. 12. A memo is filed by the standing counsel for the 3rd respondent producing letter dated 29.11.2013 issued by the SRC to the University which reads as under: "F.No.KL/Kerala Uty Centres-B.Ed/CC/2013/55200 Date 29/11/2013 Speed post To The Registrar, Kerala University, Thiru vanan thapuram, Kerala. Sub: Decision of254th meeting of SRC regarding recognition of Ten Kerala University Colleges of Teacher Education-regarding. E-mail dated 26.10.2013 of Sri. S. Ajikumaran, Addl. Secretary enclosing a letter No. 33063/B4/2013/H.Edn dated 26.10.2013 of Addl. Chief Secretary to Government, Govt, of Kerala received by this office on 14.11.2013. Decision of254th meeting of SRC held during 25th - 27th October, 2013. Sir, With reference to the above cited subject, the matter pertaining to recognition of Ten Kerala University Centres, Thiru vanan thapuram, Kerala was placed before the 254th SRC held during 25-27 October, 2013 wherein the Committee considered the e-mail is received on 26th October, 2013 from Sri. S. Ajikumaran, Add1. Secretary enclosing a letter No.33063/B4/2013/H. Edn dated 26.10.2013 of Dr. KM. Abraham, Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Higher Education (B) Dept. Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala regarding grant of recognition to Kerala University Colleges of Teacher Education. The Committee noted that Dr. KM. Abraham, Addl. Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Kerala, in his letter requested that "as the University of Kerala had taken steps to rectify the defects pointed out by NCTE in a time bound manner, the Government of Kerala will take up immediate steps to rectify the defects pointed out by the NCTE within 3 years by the University of Kerala. If the University fails to comply with the defects pointed out by the NCTE, the NCTE can pursue action in accordance with their regulations. If the University fails to comply with the defects pointed out by the NCTE, the NCTE can pursue action in accordance with their regulations. Hence, I request that the NCTE may consider the request made by the University of Kerala to go ahead with the admission procedures to B.Ed, courses in the 10 University College of Teacher Education of Keala University from the academic year 2013-14." The Committee also considered the Visiting team reports of 10 Kerala University Centers and the letter dated 16.10.2013 received from the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Kerala and decided that, in view of the directive given by the NCTE, and with reference to the undertaking given by the Government of Kerala (Letter No. 33063/B4/2013/ Higher Education, dated Thiruvananthapuram, 26.10.2013, from the Additional Chief Secretary to Government) in relaxation of the prescribed norms and standards, the recognition given to the ten Teacher Education Centres of University of Kerala is continued and the University is given time till 2015-16 to remove the deficiencies in reference failing which, without further notice, the recognition given will be withdrawn. Accordingly, as per the decision of the Southern Regional Committee recognition is continued for all the Ten Kerala University Teacher Education Centres and the University is given time till 2015-16 to remove the deficiencies pointed out failing which, without further notice, the recognition will be withdrawn." Another statement is filed by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent producing letter dated 28.10.2013 sent by them to the Additional Chief Secretary to Government. 13. An affidavit is filed by the Regional Director, SRC, NCTE as directed by this Court in an interim order dated 12.3.2014. It is inter alia stated that SRC, NCTE in the meeting held from 25.10.2013 to 27.10.2013, after considering the report of the visiting team, letter of undertaking dated 26.10.2013 submitted by the Government of Kerala and the directive issued by the NCTE, New Delhi, decided to continue the recognition given to the 10 teacher education centres and granted time till 2015-16 to remove deficiencies, failing which it is indicated that recognition will be withdrawn. 14. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Attorney on behalf of the 1 respondent and learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 15. Having regard to the nature of contentions raised, the first question to be considered is whether the writ petition is maintainable. 16. 14. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Attorney on behalf of the 1 respondent and learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 15. Having regard to the nature of contentions raised, the first question to be considered is whether the writ petition is maintainable. 16. The contention of the petitioner is that he is interested in the field of higher education as he was a teacher for about 15 years and acting as a Resource Faculty in many schools. He filed an earlier writ petition as W.P(C) No. 16187/2012 challenging continuance of all B.Ed, colleges by the University, alleging absence of recognition. It is stated that there are 502 colleges offering various teacher education courses recognised by NCTE, out of which 195 colleges are B.Ed, colleges. According to him, after conducting study, he learnt that only 185 Teacher Education Colleges were recognized for conducting B.Ed, colleges and not a single college run by the University found a place in the list of colleges recognized by the NCTE. It is his case that while college run by State Government, aided colleges and self-financing institutions are run in accordance with the norms and regulations of NCTE, the University does not have any such recognition and they are running colleges without complying with the norms and regulations of the NCTE. 17. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the University that the petitioner has no bona fides. It is pointed out that no action is being sought for against other colleges, whose recognition had been withdrawn and only the University is the target. That apart, it is contended that none of the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter relating to public interest litigation had been followed. Reference is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others [ (2010) 3 SCC 402 ] wherein the Apex Court had issued certain directions in relation to entertaining public interest litigations. It is held at paragraph 181 as under: "181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court and other courts in a number of judgments. It is held at paragraph 181 as under: "181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court and other courts in a number of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions: (1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL Filed with oblique motives. Consequently we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. (4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations." Reference is also made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Ranunag International Ltd., v. I.V.R. Constructions Ltd., [ (1999)1 SCC 492 ] especially paragraph 12, wherein the Supreme Court had occasion to observe that when a petition is filed as a public interest litigation challenging the award of contract by the State or a public body to a particular tender, the Court must satisfy itself that the party which has brought the litigation is litigating for the benefit of the public. Public interest litigation should not be merely a cloak for attending private ends of a third party or the party who was unsuccessful in the tender and the Court could examine the previous records of public service rendered by the organisation bringing in public interest litigation. While entertaining a PIL, Court must be careful to weigh conflicting public interest before intervening. It is therefore contended that the petitioner has not shown that he was involved in any public interest litigation earlier in the field of education and this writ petition is filed to help the self-financing colleges in the State. 18. The pleadings would disclose that the main contention urged by the petitioner is that he is a person who has a B.Ed, degree and was a teacher for 15 years. He is interested in the system of education. He points out a deficiency in the system of education, especially in the running of institutions of B.Ed, colleges. If an institution is functioning without proper recognition, it is the duty of a citizen to bring it to the notice of this Court. It is a settled position of law that no institution can function without proper recognition from NCTE. The main contention is that the relaxation now made with respect to recognition is without authority. If an institution is functioning without proper recognition, it is the duty of a citizen to bring it to the notice of this Court. It is a settled position of law that no institution can function without proper recognition from NCTE. The main contention is that the relaxation now made with respect to recognition is without authority. These are matters which requires to be considered in public interest as the University being a responsible institution framed under a statute is bound to comply with every statutory provisions. When a University conducts a course, the public at large proceeds on the basis that the said course is conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed. The NCTE is also bound to act in accordance with the statutory principles and regulations. Here, the petitioner points out a deficiency in the decision making process of NCTE by which, according to him, the decision granting relaxation is bad in law. Apparently, such illegalities should not be repeated and therefore in public interest, it will be advantageous for a public spirited citizen to approach this Court so that the Court can consider the alleged irregularities in judicial review and issue appropriate orders so that such irregularities will not be continued or perpetuated. Even applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) the concern now expressed by the petitioner appears to be genuine and bonafide. Hence, we do not think that this writ petition can be dismissed in limine as not maintainable. 19. Another contention urged by the learned counsel for the University is that the order granting recognition by the NCTE has not been challenged. What is under challenge is a decision taken by the SRC in its meeting. The said decision has subsequently been communicated to the University in the form of a letter dated 29.11.2013, which is already extracted above. Once such a decision has been communicated by NCTE to the University, in the absence of any challenge to the said communication, it is not possible for the petitioner to challenge the minutes of the meeting which again is an incomplete decision. It is contended by the respondents that the entire minutes is reflected in Ext. R2(b), which is also extracted above and Ext. P9 only indicates the gist of the said decision. 20. This writ petition is filed on 28.10.2013. It is contended by the respondents that the entire minutes is reflected in Ext. R2(b), which is also extracted above and Ext. P9 only indicates the gist of the said decision. 20. This writ petition is filed on 28.10.2013. Apparently, at the relevant time, what was available was only Ext. P9. NCTE's communication dated 29.11.2013 has been issued only subsequently and that too during the pendency of the above writ petition. The crux of the issue involved is whether SRC has jurisdiction to relax the norms and regulations. We do not think that anything else is required to be considered in this public interest litigation. That being the situation, merely for the reason that the petitioner did not challenge the communication dated 29.11.2013 by SRC, it cannot be stated that the writ petition is not maintainable. The said orders had been issued in consequence to Ext. P9 decision and therefore we are of the view that validity of the said communication dated 29.11.2013, depends upon the validity of the decision taken by SRC in Ext.P9. Hence, this writ petition cannot be dismissed for the reason that the petitioner did not challenge the communication dated 29.11.2013. 21. Yet another contention urged by the learned counsel for the 3 respondent is with reference to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that this Court had dismissed an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner as W.P (C) No. 16187/2012 taking note of Ext. P9 decision. On a perusal of the said judgment, we do not think that the present writ petition is barred by principles of res judicata. In the said decision itself, we have clearly indicated that once recognition is renewed by the decision of the SRC, NCTE in its 254th meeting, the foundation for the said writ petition is not in existence any more. We have also observed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that allowing the 3rd respondent to have the recognition till 2015-2016 is against the provision for grant of recognition in terms of Section 14 of the Act. Since the decision by the SRC, NCTE was challenged by filing a separate writ petition , we did not think it necessary to go into the said controversy. Since the decision by the SRC, NCTE was challenged by filing a separate writ petition , we did not think it necessary to go into the said controversy. So far as the relief sought in the said writ petition was concerned we have further observed that since SRC, NCTE in its 254th meeting held at Bangalore decided to continue recognition there was no reason to consider the matter on merits. 22. It is further observed by us that "All other contentions pertaining to the decision of NCTE to continue the recognition for ten B.Ed. Centres of third respondent University are kept open." The writ petition was hence dismissed. It is argued that when this Court dismissed the writ petition on account of the fact that recognition is renewed by the decision of SRC, NCTE in its 254th meeting, it is not open for the petitioner to re-agitate the issue and therefore as matters stand now, this Court had given a seal to the approval made by the SRC and it is pursuant to such a decision of this Court that the University had started admissions and proceeded with the same. It is therefore not open for this Court to reconsider the said recognition, as the University had proceeded to admit students based on the judgment aforesaid. 23. True that at the relevant point of time, this Court had dismissed the earlier writ petition of the petitioner. But it was clearly observed that it was open for the petitioner to agitate the validity of the decision taken by NCTE. It may also be true that the University had proceeded to start classes based on the aforesaid judgment. It is relevant to note that even as on 29.10.2013, when the aforesaid judgment was delivered, the above writ petition was pending, which was taken note of by this Court. Under these circumstances, we do not think that merely for the reason that the University had started admissions based on the said judgment, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has no right to challenge the said decision. As already indicated in the judgment itself, right of the petitioner to challenge the said decision was kept open. Hence, the writ petition cannot be dismissed on that ground as well. 24. On merits, the main contention is with reference to the right of SRC to grant relaxation. As already indicated in the judgment itself, right of the petitioner to challenge the said decision was kept open. Hence, the writ petition cannot be dismissed on that ground as well. 24. On merits, the main contention is with reference to the right of SRC to grant relaxation. Section 14 of the Act reads as under: "14. Recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education.—(1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations: Provided that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. (2) The fee to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee from any institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall, (a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions as maybe determined by regulations; or (b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing recognition to such institution for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that before passing an order under sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the concerned institution for making a written representation. (4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teacher education under sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government. (5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3). (6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under sub-section (4),— (a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or (b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused. " The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that NCTE can grant recognition only if the respective colleges comply with all the procedures prescribed under the Act and the Regulations. There is no provision enabling the SRC to relax all or any of the conditions prescribed under the statute. The Regulations which are applicable is the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter referred as the 'Regulations') and the power to relax is provided under Clause 12, which reads as under: "12. Power to relax.- On the recommendations of State Government or Union Territory Administration concerned, or in cases for removal of any hardship caused in adhering to the provisions in these Regulations, keeping in view the circumstances peculiar to the said State or Union Territory it shall be open to the Chairperson, National Council for Teacher Education, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to relax any of the provisions of these Regulations, in respect of any class or category of institutions, in the concerned state or Union Territory, to such an extent and subject to such conditions, as may be specified in the order allowing relaxation. However, in exceptional cases and for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Chairperson, National Council for Teacher Education shall be competent to relax provisions of these Regulations and the related Norms and Standards subject to its ratification by the Council. However, in exceptional cases and for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Chairperson, National Council for Teacher Education shall be competent to relax provisions of these Regulations and the related Norms and Standards subject to its ratification by the Council. " In so far as the power to relax the Regulations under certain circumstances have been given only to Chairperson of the National Council for Teacher Education and in the absence of any such document, it was not open for the SRC to have relaxed the norms. In the decision referred at Ext. P9, reference is made to a letter issued by the Chairperson, National Council. The said letter is produced as Ext. PI 1(2), which applies only to Central Universities. When relaxation is granted by the National Council only in respect of Central Universities, the Southern Regional Committee could not have applied that letter to give relaxation to the 10 B.Ed Centres run by the Kerala University. 25. Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for petitioner on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya & Others v. Subhash Rahangdale & Others, (2012) 2 SCC 425 and National Council for Teacher Education and Another v. Venus Public Education Society and Others, (2013) 1 SCC 223 and. Paragraphs 3, 33 and 34 of Venus Public Education Society are relevant, which read as under: "3. It is to be clearly stated that an institution that is engaged or interested in getting involved in imparting a course for training has to obey the command of law in letter and spirit. There cannot be any deviation. But unfortunately, some of the institutions flagrantly violate the norms with adamantine audacity and seek indulgence of the court either in the name of mercy or sympathy for the students or financial constraint of the institution or they have been inappropriately treated by the statutory regulatory bodies. None of these grounds justify deviation. The case at hand graphically depicts deviations but the High Court, putting the blame on the statutory authority has granted relief to the respondent institution which is impermissible." XX XX XX 33. Now, to the last plank of submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. None of these grounds justify deviation. The case at hand graphically depicts deviations but the High Court, putting the blame on the statutory authority has granted relief to the respondent institution which is impermissible." XX XX XX 33. Now, to the last plank of submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. It is urged by him that NCTE had procrastinated its decision at every stage and such delay was deliberate and, therefore, the Society was compelled to admit the students and impart education, regard being had to the fact that there were really no deficiencies. As has been laid down in many a pronouncement of this Court that without recognition from NCTE and affiliation from the university/examining body, the educational institution cannot admit the students. An educational institution is expected to be aware of the law. The students who take admission are not young in age. They are graduates. They are expected to enquire whether the institution has recognition and affiliation. If we allow ourselves to say so, the institution had given admission in a nonchalant manner. Possibly, its functionaries harboured the idea that they had incomparable fertile mind. The students who had taken admission possibly immersed with the idea that ignorance is a bliss. It is also necessary to state that the institution had the anxious enthusiasm to commercialise education and earn money forgetting the factum that such an attitude leads to a disaster. The students exhibited tremendous anxiety to get a degree without bothering for a moment whether their effort, if any, had the sanctity of law. Such attitudes only bring nemesis. It would not be wrong to say that this is not a case which put the institution or the students to choose between Scylla and Charybdis-. On the contrary, both of them were expected m^ to be Argus-eyed—. The basic motto should have been "transparency". Unfortunately, the institution betrayed the trust of the students and the students, in a way, atrophied their intelligence. The institution decidedly exhibited characteristics of carelessness. It seems that they had forgotten that they are accountable to law. The students, while thinking "vision of hope", chose to play possum. The law does not countenance either of the ideas. Hence, the plea propounded with anxiety, vehemence and desperation on behalf of the respondent is not acceptable and, accordingly we unhesitatingly repel the same. 34. It seems that they had forgotten that they are accountable to law. The students, while thinking "vision of hope", chose to play possum. The law does not countenance either of the ideas. Hence, the plea propounded with anxiety, vehemence and desperation on behalf of the respondent is not acceptable and, accordingly we unhesitatingly repel the same. 34. Before parting with the case, we are obliged to state that NCTE should have acted in quite promptitude, for a statutory authority which is conferred with the power, is required to act within the parameters of law and the directions given by the court and further not to create a feeling among the educational institutions that they are harassed. This Court expects that NCTE shall function with propriety regard being had to the statutory responsibility bestowed on it by Parliament. Its actions neither should show arbitrariness nor should it reflect any indulgence. Objectivity, reliability and trust are to be the motto of NCTE and the committees working under it. We say no more on this score." 26. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the University specifically refers to Section 14 of the NCTE Act and contends that when the Regional Committee has the power to grant recognition, Section 14(3) permits such grant on such conditions which inter alia included the power to relax as well. We do not think so. Going by the provisions of the statute, especially Section 14 of the NCTE Act, we are of the clear view that the SRC can grant recognition only if all the conditions as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations are complied with. Section 14(3) does not lay down any other method to relax such conditions. Regulations have been framed under the provisions of the Act which clearly gives power only to the Chairperson of the National Council to relax any of the conditions as stipulated in the Act or the Regulaions framed thereunder. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the decision taken by SRC to relax the norms prescribed for starting or continuing the recognition of colleges is bad in law. That apart, this Court, in the judgment at Ext. P4, had clearly observed that the recognition for the colleges will be valid only for the academic year 2011-2012. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the decision taken by SRC to relax the norms prescribed for starting or continuing the recognition of colleges is bad in law. That apart, this Court, in the judgment at Ext. P4, had clearly observed that the recognition for the colleges will be valid only for the academic year 2011-2012. Therefore, in respect of the subsequent academic years, either the University ought to have complied with the requirements in terms with the Regulations and had obtained recognition for the same or else the Chairperson of the National Council ought to have granted relaxation in terms of Clause 12 of the Regulations. Therefore, this is a case in which the Regional Committee had exercised a power of relaxation which was not available to them either under the Act or the Regulations, while taking a decision at Ext. P9 and thereafter communicating the said decision to the University in terms of their letter dated 29.11.2013. While exercising the power under the Statute the SRC ought to have kept in mind the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments cited above. 27. The next question is regarding relaxation that has to be granted in the present case. It is argued by the learned counsel for the University in terms of Section 17(3) of the Act that the University had admitted students on the basis of Ext. P9 decision taken by SRC and the communication received by them as per letter dated 29.11.2013. In so far as they have relied upon the said communication and has admitted students to the present academic year, if a view is taken that the decision was bad in law, it will affect the interest of the students as well. 28. Section 17 of the Act reads as under: "17. In so far as they have relied upon the said communication and has admitted students to the present academic year, if a view is taken that the decision was bad in law, it will affect the interest of the students as well. 28. Section 17 of the Act reads as under: "17. Contravention of provisions of the Act and consequences thereof.—(1) Where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognised institution has contravened any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under sub-section (3) of Section 14 or permission under sub-section (3) of Section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognised institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such order against the recognised institution shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order has been given to such recognised institution: Provided further that the order withdrawing or refusing recognition passed by the Regional Committee shall come into force only with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of such order. (2) A copy of every order passed by the Regional Committee under sub-section (1),— (a) shall be communicated to the recognised institution concerned and a copy thereof shall also be forwarded simultaneously to the University or the examining body to which such institution was affiliated for cancelling affiliation; and (b) shall be published in the Official Gazette for general information. (3) Once the recognition of a recognised institution is withdrawn under sub-section (1), such institution shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education, and the concerned University or the examining body shall cancel affiliation of the institution in accordance with the order passed under sub-section (1), with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the said order. (4) If an institution offers any course or training in teacher education after the coming into force of the order withdrawing recognition under sub-section (1), or where an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University, or in any school/college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government." The aforesaid provision mandates that if for any reason the recognition of a college is withdrawn under sub-section (1), such institution shall discontinue the course with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the said order. Having regard to the fact that the University has admitted students based on an order passed by the SRC, though it can be said that they have exceeded their power, in so far as the students are concerned, we cannot hold that they got admission knowing about the fact that the University did not have recognition. At the time when they got admission and until now as far as the University is concerned, they have the advantage of a decision taken by SRC. Despite the fact that SRC had no jurisdiction to grant such relaxation, taking into consideration the fact that the University cannot be found fault with at this juncture, we are of the view that the validity of the decision at Ext. P9 and the letter dated 29.11.2013 shall be available to the University only until till the end of this academic year. If at all the University wants further recognition from the next academic year, 2014-2015 onwards, they have to get recognition after complying with all the norms prescribed by NCTE or if they are unable to comply with the norms and standards fixed by the NCTE, appropriate relaxation should be obtained in terms of clause 12 of the aforesaid Regulations. 29. If at all the University wants further recognition from the next academic year, 2014-2015 onwards, they have to get recognition after complying with all the norms prescribed by NCTE or if they are unable to comply with the norms and standards fixed by the NCTE, appropriate relaxation should be obtained in terms of clause 12 of the aforesaid Regulations. 29. The learned counsel for the petitioner has a further case that the order is invalid on account of bias in favour of the University in so far as a former Registrar of the University was a member of SRC. Apart from making such a bald allegation, no materials are produced to indicate that the said member had exercised any bias to favour the University in the decision making process. Hence, we do not think that the decision at Ext. P9 is actuated by bias as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 30. On the basis of a memo filed on 2.4.2014, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has placed on record inspection reports of the visiting team in respect of the 10 colleges of the University conducted from 15.10.2013 to 19.10.2013. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are several infirmities in the aforesaid report and it is contended that there are several deficiencies other than what is now projected by the University, we do not think that such matters are required to be considered at this point of time, especially on account of the decision we have taken in the matter. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of as under: The decision at SI. No. 77 of Ext. P9 shall be valid only for the academic year 2013-2014 and in respect of the next academic year 2014-2015 onwards, there will be a direction to the SRC to consider whether the University has complied with all the requirements as provided under the Statute and either grant recognition or refuse the same. If the University is unable to get recognition or any relaxation from the Chairperson of the National Council as provided under Clause 12 of the Regulations, it is made clear that the University shall not conduct any further course unless they obtain recognition from the SRC in terms of Section 14 of the Act.