JUDGMENT 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Fifteen Educational Institutions under private management applied for recognition to the National Council for Teachers Education, Delhi (for short, 'the NCTE) for conducting education research and training in teacher education, and to admit the students for B.Ed. Courses for the year 2014-15. They also applied for affiliation to the Universities in the State of Rajasthan, and for Objection Certificate from the State Government. After the Common Entrance Examination, in which these institutions were not included the counselling was closed on 08.09.2014. Before the counselling could be closed for the academic session 2014-15, the State Government refused to grant No Objection Certificate to these institutions on the ground that there are total number of 793 B.Ed. Colleges in Rajasthan, which are quite adequate. The number of the candidates, who are pursuing B.Ed. Course, are far in excess to the total number of new teachers required in the State of Rajasthan. The State Government was of the view that with an annual intake of 91690 students in the B.Ed. Colleges in the State of Rajasthan, in accordance with the academic survey conducted by the NCTE, the State of Rajasthan will have 62137 students between the academic sessions 2009-10 to 2016-17, which would be in excess of the actual demand of teacher trainees in the State of Rajasthan. 3. The letter dated 13.05.2011 sent by the Joint Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan to the Regional Director (NRC, NCTE), Jaipur, and the consequent refusal to issue a No Objection Certificate was challenged by the appellants in a writ petition before learned Single Judge. 4. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Others [ (2006) 9 SCC 1 ] , the writ petitions were allowed on 04.09.2014 with directions to the effect that the petitioner institutions would be entitled to participate in the counselling for admitting the students. The respondent-University will consider the petitioner institutions for affiliation, subject to fulfilment of all requirements and the State of Rajasthan would immediately issue No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioners in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court. 5. The respondent-University will consider the petitioner institutions for affiliation, subject to fulfilment of all requirements and the State of Rajasthan would immediately issue No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioners in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court. 5. On 24.11.2014, by an interim order, the effect and operation of the judgment dated 04.09.2014 was stayed on the ground that the Court could not have given blanked directions and further that the compulsory lectures of 200 days will not be completed in the remaining part of the academic year in pursuance to the norms and standards for Bachelor of Education programme leading to B.Ed. Degree for the academic year 2014-15. The interim order dated 24.11.2014 is quoted as below : "We have heard learned counsel appearing for the State-appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. The delay of 5 days in filing the Special Appeal has been explained with good and sufficient grounds. The delay is condoned. The reply would be filed to the Special Appeal within two weeks. List for hearing in the second week of January, 2015. The State of Rajasthan is aggrieved by the directions issued by learned Single Judge that the petitioner-institutions would be entitled to participate in the counselling for admission of the students, and that the respondent-University will consider the petitioner-Institutions for affiliation, subject to fulfilment of requirements, and that the State of Rajasthan would immediately issue No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner-institutions, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court. The State of Rajasthan has refused to issue No Objection Certificate to the respondent-Colleges, for admission in the B.Ed. Course for the year 2014-15. The grounds, for refusing to issue No Objection Certificate for the year 2014-15, are based upon the survey conducted by the National Council for Teacher Education, Delhi (for short, the NCTE). In the letter dated 13.05.2014 sent by the Joint Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan to the Regional Director (NRC, NCTE), National Council for Teacher Education, Jaipur, it is stated "With reference to your above mentioned letter as directed it is submitted that the application of L.B.S. B.Ed. College Jaipur for grant of No Objection Certificate for recognition for B.Ed. Course has been considered by the State Government in the light of direction of the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ Petition no. 3654/2014, dated 04.04.2014. College Jaipur for grant of No Objection Certificate for recognition for B.Ed. Course has been considered by the State Government in the light of direction of the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ Petition no. 3654/2014, dated 04.04.2014. It has been observed that: (1) B.Ed. Colleges are already running in Jaipur district with an annual intake of 15600 Students. (2) B.Ed. Colleges are already running in the State of Rajasthan with an annual intake of 91,690 Students. (3) The academic survey conducted by the NCTE, Delhi points out that for the State of Rajasthan from 2009-10 to 2016-17, 62,137 seats would be far in excess of the actual demand for teacher trainees. Keeping in view the above mentioned position, the State Government is of the view that the number of existing 137 Colleges in Jaipur District is quite adequate. Also, the total number of existing 793 Colleges in the State of Rajasthan is quite adequate and the number of candidates who are completing their B.Ed. Course each year from these Colleges is far in excess of the total number of new teachers required in the State of Rajasthan. Permitting new private B.Ed. Colleges in the State would lead to exploitation of students. They will pay high fees but not get employment, since the job opportunities are less than the number of trained teachers already passing out each year from the B.Ed. Seats already sanctioned in the existing institutions. Therefore, the State Government is of the considered view that No Objection Certificate should not be granted to L.B.S. B.Ed. College Jaipur Rajasthan for setting up a B.Ed. Education institution. Moreover, looking to the overall position of seats already sanctioned in the State for B.Ed. Course, which is already in excess, as pointed out above, it is further stated that the refusal to grant No Objection Certificate is not restricted to this institution only. The State Government has taken a policy decision not to grant No Objection Certificate to any new private B.Ed. Institution in the State till 2015." Learned Single Judge has noted the grounds, on which the No Objection Certificate was refused, he has not considered the validity of the grounds, and has rather chosen the rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors. [ (2006) 9 SCC 1 ] . [ (2006) 9 SCC 1 ] . It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the State-appellants that the question as to whether the excess capacity, in any particular State of the actual demand of teacher trainees, could be a ground to refuse the No Objection Certificate, was not considered by the Apex Court, nor learned Single Judge has considered the grounds of refusal to untenable. He submits that an annual intake capacity of 91,690 students in B.Ed. colleges in the State of Rajasthan and the excess capacity created in the new colleges of 62,137 seats would be far in excess of the actual demand of teacher trainees. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Institutions has submitted that one the recognition is granted by NCTE, and that affiliation is obtained from the University, the State Government cannot deny No Objection Certificate on the ground that the overall capacity of the students in the State of Rajasthan, or Jaipur is in excess of the demand of teacher trainees, he submits that the capacity of the new Colleges, taken together in the State of Rajasthan, is not a ground, on which No Objection Certificate could be refused by the State Government. Prima facie, we find that it is a concern of the State Government to ensure that there are sufficient number of colleges for B.Ed. Course, so that there is no shortage of teachers in the State of Rajasthan. In case, the number of colleges and the intake is extremely high, the State Government can justifiably refuse the admission on the ground that the number of trainee teachers will be far and excess of the actual demand of teacher trainees, to avoid the issue of unemployment in future. The mushroom growth of Colleges offering B.Ed. Courses in the State of Rajasthan, has compounded the problem. Prima facie, we find that since this question has not been considered by learned Single Judge, it would be appropriate to decide the matter on merits after hearing the parties at an early date. We are of the view that in the meantime, the blanked directions issued by learned Single Judge, would create a difficulty for the State Government in adjusting the number of students with B.Ed. Degrees, for the purposes of giving employment, and further that high intake will also lower down the standards of education. We are of the view that in the meantime, the blanked directions issued by learned Single Judge, would create a difficulty for the State Government in adjusting the number of students with B.Ed. Degrees, for the purposes of giving employment, and further that high intake will also lower down the standards of education. Learned counsel appearing for the State-appellants also informs the Court that by this time, more than five months of the calender, for teaching, is over, and that the respondent would not be able to complete the compulsory 200 days of lectures, in the remaining part of the academic year in pursuance to the norms and standards for Bachelor of Education programme leading to B.Ed. Degree for the year 2014-15. The counselling has also been closed according to the calender, on 08.09.2014. For the aforesaid reasons, until further orders, the effect and operation of the impugned judgment dated 04.09.2014 shall remain stayed." 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the L.B.S. B.Ed College had filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 35259-35260/2014, in which on 18.12.2014, the Supreme Court passed the following orders: "Taken on board. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that as the Petition has been set out for hearing before the Division Bench of High Court on 9th January, 2015, he does not with to press the Special Leave Petitions. The petitions are dismissed as not pressed." 7. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the State-appellants that after the judgment in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (supra), the Supreme Court has rendered on 13.12.2012 a judgment in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [ (2013)2 SCC 617 ] , in which it was held in paragraph Nos. 79, 80 & 81 as follows: 79. It is on record and the Regulations framed under the Act clearly show that upon receiving an application for recommendation, the NCTE shall send a copy of the application with its letter inviting recommendations/comments of the State Government on all aspects within a period of 30 days. To such, application, the State is expected to respond with its complete comments within a period of 60 days. In other words, the opinion of the State on all matters that may concern it in any of the specified fields a recalled for. To such, application, the State is expected to respond with its complete comments within a period of 60 days. In other words, the opinion of the State on all matters that may concern it in any of the specified fields a recalled for. This is the stage where the State and its Department should play a vital role. They must take all precautions to offer proper comments supported by due reasoning. Once these comments are sent and the State Government gives its opinion which is considered by the NCTE and examined in conjunction with the report of the experts, it may grant or refuse recognition. Once it grants recognition, then such grant attains supremacy viz-a-viz the State Government as well as the affiliating body. Normally, these questions cannot be re-agitated at the time of grant of affiliation. Once the University conducts inspection in terms of its Statutes or Act, without offending the provisions of the Act and conditions of recognition, then the opinion of the State Government at the second stage is a mere formality unless there was a drastic and unacceptable mistake or the entire process was vitiated by fraud or there was patently eminent danger to life of the students working in the school because of non-compliance of a substantive condition imposed by either of the bodies, in the normal circumstances, the role of the State is a very formal one and the State is not expected to obstruct the commencement of admission process and academic courses once recognition is granted and affiliation is found to be acceptable. 80. In Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (supra), the view of this Court was that the State Government has not role whatsoever. However, in the case of Bhartia Education Society (supra), it was stated that the role of the State Government was limited to the manner of admission, eligibility criteria, etc. without interfering with the conditions of recognition prescribed by the NCTE. the exercise of discretion by the State Government and affiliating body has to be within the framework of the Act, the Regulations and conditions of recognition. Even in St. John Teachers Training Institute (supra), the Court stated that the State Government or the Union Territory has to necessarily confine itself to the guide(D.B.)lines issued by the NCTE while considering application for grant of No Objection Certificate. Even in St. John Teachers Training Institute (supra), the Court stated that the State Government or the Union Territory has to necessarily confine itself to the guide(D.B.)lines issued by the NCTE while considering application for grant of No Objection Certificate. Minimization of (D.B.)the role of the State at the second stage can also be justified on the ground that affiliation primarily is a subject matter of the University which is responsible for admission of the students laying down the criteria thereof, holding of examinations and implementation of the prescribed courses while maintaining the standards of education as prescribed. 81. Lastly, the question which is required to be discussed in light of the facts of the present cases is adherence to the Schedule. Once the relevant Schedules have been prescribed under the Regulations or under the Judge made law, none, whosoever it be, is entitled to carve out exceptions to the prescribed Schedule. Adherence to the Schedule is the essence of granting admission in a fair and transparent manner as well as to maintain the standards of education. The purpose of providing a time schedule is to ensure that all concerned authorities act within the; stipulated time. Where, on he one hand, it places an obligation upon the authorities to act according to the Schedule, there it also provides complete clarity to other stakeholders as to when their application would either be accepted and/or rejected and what will be the time duration for it to be processed at different quarter. It also gives clear understanding to the students for whose benefit the entire process is set up as to when; their examinations would be held, when results would be declared and when they are expected to take admission to different colleges in order of merit obtained by them in the entrance examinations or other processes for the purposes of subject and college preference." 8. It is submitted by the Additional Advocate General that the State Government was conscious of a large number of students completing B.Ed. Course in the State, which will cause unemployment and a problem for the State of Rajasthan to accommodate them in the schools, and consequently a policy decision was taken not to grant No Objection Certificate to the appellants. It is submitted that ordinarily, as held in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. Course in the State, which will cause unemployment and a problem for the State of Rajasthan to accommodate them in the schools, and consequently a policy decision was taken not to grant No Objection Certificate to the appellants. It is submitted that ordinarily, as held in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. (supra), the role of the State is very formal, and the State is not expected to obstruct the commencement of admission process and academic; courses recognition is granted and affiliation is found to be acceptable; the State Government, having considered the data collected by the NCTE itself took a decision not to issue No Objection Certificate to any more colleges. In the present case, it is submitted that the appellant-institutions were not issued No Objection Certificate on the ground that the number of persons, who will complete B.Ed. Course will be far in excess to be accommodated, which is a relevant consideration for the State Government for refusing the No Objection Certificate. 9. Mr. Kapil Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the coordinator, Pre-Teachers Education Test (in short, PTET) informs the Court that the fifteen Institutions were required to fulfil all necessary conditions namely, the affiliations with the Universities and the No Objection Certificate to be issued by the State Government before 04.07.2014, as he counselling was scheduled; to be closed on 02.09.2014, and was actually concluded on 08.09.2014. The appellant colleges got the affiliations from the Universities in the month of October, 2014 much after the counselling was closed They did not fulfil the conditions for allowing the participation in the counselling upto 08.09.2014 when the counselling was actually closed. The refusal for No Objection Certificate by the State Government, was additional ground on which they were not allowed to take part in counselling. 10. We are faced with a piquant situation in these Special Appeals, inasmuch as, any relief to be granted to the appellant-institutions on the ground that they have also developed infrastructure, for which they have invested huge amount, will not leave sufficient time, for the students at this stage, if they are permitted to be admitted after counselling, to complete the minimum of 180 days lectures of B.Ed. Programme recommended by the NCTE in its Regulations. Programme recommended by the NCTE in its Regulations. Para 3(2.2) of the Norms and Standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme leading to Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) Degree is quoted as below: "2.2 Working Days (a) There shall be at least 180 working days exclusive of period of examination and admission etc., out of which at least 40 days shall be for practice teaching in about ten schools at upper primary/secondary/ senior secondary level. (b) A working day shall be of a minimum of 6 hours in a six-day week, during which physical presence in the institution of teachers and students-teachers is necessary to ensure their availability for individual advice, guidance, dialogues and consultation as and when needed." 11. We are informed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in the substituted Regulations of 2009, which are applicable now, the period of 200 days has been substituted by 180 days, and that the respondents will be able to complete 180 days of teaching, if they are allowed to teach on Sundays and on holidays. According to the respondent-Colleges, the period of teaching from January, 2015 to August, 2015 on normal days will be 201 days, and if 35 Sundays followed by 7 holidays they will get 243 days available from 1st January, 2015 till August, 2015 to complete the course. 12. We are unable to appreciate, nor inclined to permit the colleges to rush up the students of B.Ed., which are proposed to be admitted through counselling in the last week of January, 2015, to complete the Course, which includes at least 40 days of practical teaching. 13. In Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr.[ (2010) 6 SCC 759 ] , it was held by the Supreme Court in para 23 as follows: "23. The situation will be entirely different where the court deals with the issue of admission in mid- academic session. This court has time and again said that it is not permissible for the Courts to issue direction for admission in mid-academic session. The reason for it has been that admission to a student at a belated stage disturbs other students, who have already been pursuing the course and such a student would not be able to complete the required attendance in theory as well as in practical classes. Quality of education cannot be compromised. The reason for it has been that admission to a student at a belated stage disturbs other students, who have already been pursuing the course and such a student would not be able to complete the required attendance in theory as well as in practical classes. Quality of education cannot be compromised. The students taking admission at a belated stage may not be able to complete the courses in the limited period. In this connection reference may be made to the decisions of this Court in Dr. Pramod Kumar Joshi v. Medical Council of India & Ors., (1991) 2 SCC 179 ; State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta etc., AIR 1992 SC 932 ; State of Punjab & Ors. v. Renuka Singla & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 595 ; Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh & Ors., (2002) 7 SCC 258 ; and Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 2 SCC 65 ." 14. We also find substance in the objections raised by learned counsel appearing for the Co-ordinator, PTET that the colleges did not have affiliation from the University, and thus, they did not fulfil all conditions for admitting them, for allowing to be included in the counselling upto the last date fixed by the Coordinator, PTET upto 04.07.2014. The affiliations from the University were given after the cut-off of the date fixed for all the colleges for counselling by the Coordinator, PTET. The respondent-institutions are thus not entitled to the benefit of the principles of law laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors. (supra), and Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra). 15. We may observe here that even if, we accept the suggestions of learned counsel appearing for the respondents, that will squeeze and complete the course upto the August, 2015, we are of the view that any directions issued by us in this regard will be detrimental to the interest of students, and their proficiency to teach, which is of paramount consideration by the Court in making such orders. The equities in such cases have to be taken into consideration, keeping in mind the interest of the students, and not the colleges, which have started these courses, as commercial activities. The equities in such cases have to be taken into consideration, keeping in mind the interest of the students, and not the colleges, which have started these courses, as commercial activities. We may also observe that no individual, who had succeeded in the PTET Examination, and was not admitted to B.Ed. Course in the counselling, had filed a writ petition for seeking admission to any of these fifteen colleges. It is only the colleges, which had filed writ petition for seeking admission to any of these fifteen colleges. It is only the colleges, which had filed writ petitions in order to protect the investments made by them, in engaging the faculty and creating infrastructure to run colleges. The recognition given by NCTE, in the absence of the No Objection Certificate given by the State Government, and the delayed affiliations does not give any indefeasible rights to the respondent colleges to seek a writ of mandamus to hold the counselling, which was closed on 8th September, 2014, to admit students for benefit of colleges above this stage. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, all the Special Appeals are allowed. All the orders passed by learned Single Judge are set aside. The Colleges may be allowed to admit the students for the academic year 2015-16, subject to fulfilment of the new guidelines issued by the NCTE on 28.11.2014.A copy of this order will be placed in all connected files.All special appeals allowed. *******