JUDGMENT : Durga Prasanna Choudhury, J. 1. The captioned writ application challenges the refusal of permission to the petitioner-University to conduct B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. (Teacher Training) Courses at its University under National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (in short 'NCTE Act') and Regulations thereunder. FACTS: 2. The brief details of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a University created by the enactment by State legislature, namely, Centurion University of Technology & Management Act, 2010 (for short 'the CUTM Act'). 3. As there is an acute shortage of trained teachers and there is clear mandate of the State to impart clear education and training programme under the CUTM Act, the petitioner requested O.P. No. 1 vide letter dated 18.4.2011 (Annexure-6) to permit the petitioner-University to begin the Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) and D.El.Ed. (Teacher Training) Courses to produce qualitative and quantitative professional teachers for the State. It is also mentioned in the letter that the petitioner-University has got necessary power to establish academic and research facilities in such branches of learning under sections 8(a) & (e) of the CUTM Act. On 1.3.2011, NCTE published a public notice on-line inviting application for recognition of teacher training courses for the academic courses 2012-13. It is further alleged, inter alia, that the Jagannath Institute of Technology and Management (JITM) being a constituent college of the petitioner-University submitted an online application with necessary documents for the establishment of B.Ed. Institution at Rayagada for the Academic year 2012-13. On 17.10.2011 O.P. No. 1 asked the petitioner to obtain necessary permission and recognition for the said course from the Regional Director, NCTE as required under the provision of NCTE Act. Thereafter the petitioner submitted application for grant of recognition for starting B.Ed. courses for the year 2012-13 before the Regional Director, NCTE. On 25.11.2011 the Regional Director, NCTE informed the O.P. No. 1 that as per Regulation 7(3) of the NCTE Regulation the State Government has to furnish the recommendation or comments on the application of the required institution to the office of the Regional Committee within 45 days from the date of issue of the letter to the State Government. In case the State Government is not in favour of recognition, it shall provide detail reasons or grounds thereof which shall be taken into consideration by the Regional Committee. In case the State Government is not in favour of recognition, it shall provide detail reasons or grounds thereof which shall be taken into consideration by the Regional Committee. On 17.1.2012 O.P. No. 1 instead of sending recommendation for grant of recognition to commence B.Ed. course, illegally and arbitrarily rejected the proposal of the petitioner-University for grant of recognition without assigning any reason and the said letter is annexed as Annexure-12. 4. Challenging such arbitrary and illegal action of the State Government, the petitioner-University filed writ petition before this Court vide W.P.(C) No. 2656 of 2012. During pendency of the writ application, O.P. No. 2-Eastern Regional Committee sent a reminder letter to the State Government to furnish recommendation within thirty days with regard to the application of the petitioner-University for recognition of its B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. Courses (Teacher Training Courses). It is further averred by the petitioner that this Court in the aforesaid writ application, directed the O.P. No. 1 to consider the letters of the NCTE within two weeks. In response to the order of this Court, O.P. No. 1 asked the NCTE not to grant recognition to the petitioner-University for starting new B.Ed. course vide Annexure-15. Therefore, the petitioner-University was constrained to file another writ application vide W.P.(C) No. 13637 of 2012 seeking direction to comply with the procedure for grant of recognition to the said B.Ed. (Teacher Training) Course to the said petitioner-University. On the said writ application on 19.11.2012 this Court directed the Regional Director, NCTE to take a decision, if not taken already in the meantime, in the matter within four weeks from the date of order. The Regional Director, NCTE passed the order on 29.11.2012 refusing to grant recognition to the petitioner in view of the letter of the O.P. No. 1 under section 14(3)(b) of the NCTE Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the Regional Director, NCTE, petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under section 18 of the NCTE Act before O.P. No. 1-the appellate authority. The appellate authority after hearing, remanded the matter of the petitioner to the Eastern Regional Committee (O.P. No. 2) of the NCTE with a direction to process the application of the petitioner as and when it submits no objection certificate from the State Government. The appellate authority after hearing, remanded the matter of the petitioner to the Eastern Regional Committee (O.P. No. 2) of the NCTE with a direction to process the application of the petitioner as and when it submits no objection certificate from the State Government. Thereafter the Eastern Regional Committee (O.P. No. 2) of the NCTE vide letter dated 18.4.2013 intimated the petitioner that only after receipt of no objection certificate from the State Government, the application of the petitioner can be processed. 6. Being aggrieved by the adverse order passed by the Eastern Regional Committee (O.P. No. 2) of the NCTE, petitioner was again constrained to file writ application vide W.P.(C) No. 10717 of 2013 before this Court. This Court in the said writ application, refused to interfere with the order passed by the opposite parties. 7. Against the order of this Court, the petitioner filed S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Apex Court vide S.L.P. (Civil) No. 36932 of 2013 arising out of Civil Appeal No. 5571 of 2014 (Centurion University of Technology and Management v. State of Odisha and others). Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the S.L.P. and issued a mandamus directing the opposite party-State Government and NCTE to pass fresh orders in accordance with the judgment in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 617 as well as in terms of the policy decision of the State Government recorded in its meeting dated 10.2.2014. Hon'ble Apex Court further directed to O.P. No. 1 to communicate its decision to the NCTE within four weeks from the date of order and the NCTE was to take final decision thereafter, in any case, by the end of July 2014. 8. It is the further case of the petitioner that the O.P. No. 1 sat over the matter on the plea that the policy decision meeting dated 10.2.2014 was not the revised policy decision of the State and referred the matter to the Law Department for opinion as to compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 8. It is the further case of the petitioner that the O.P. No. 1 sat over the matter on the plea that the policy decision meeting dated 10.2.2014 was not the revised policy decision of the State and referred the matter to the Law Department for opinion as to compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is alleged, inter alia, that unless the Odisha Education Act, 1969 which prohibits the private institutions from offering teacher training courses, is amended, no policy decision can be taken to issue the no objection certificate to any private institution and as such the case of the petitioner was rejected on 16.6.2014 by the opposite party No. 1. It is the further case of the petitioner that in view of the Regulation 7(3) of the NCTE Regulation, 2009 and also Regulation, 2014, NCTE is required to comply with its independent mind, to the merits of the application irrespective of whether any recommendation is received from the State Government or not. Therefore, finding no other way petitioner filed the present writ application seeking remedy on the ground that the fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. So it is prayed in the writ application to direct the O.Ps. 2 & 3 to grant permission to the petitioner to impart B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. Courses (Teacher Training Courses) at its University after passing an order of recognition to the petitioner-University to conduct such courses. It is further prayed to declare refusal of grant of recognition in favour of petitioner, by NCTE to conduct such courses as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law and to quash such impugned order dated 16.6.2014. 9. O.Ps. 2 & 3 filed counter stating that the petitioner-institution has submitted application for two courses, i.e., B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. Courses separately for the academic year 2016-17 although D.El.Ed. (Teacher Training Courses) has been written in the original writ application. Of course, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the courses applied for recognition or issue of no objection certificate (NOC) for the B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. (Teacher Training Courses) and B.P.Ed. courses. It is further revealed from the counter of O.Ps. (Teacher Training Courses) has been written in the original writ application. Of course, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the courses applied for recognition or issue of no objection certificate (NOC) for the B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. (Teacher Training Courses) and B.P.Ed. courses. It is further revealed from the counter of O.Ps. 2 & 3 that as per Regulation 7(4) of the NCTE Regulation 2014, the State Government has been communicated to furnish its recommendation or comment within 45 days vide letter No. 34056/dt. 20.7.2015 and letter No. 34754 dt. 10.8.2015 for B.Ed. & B.P.Ed. (Teacher Training Courses) respectively. 10. Opposite Party No. 1 filed counter-affidavit stating that since 14.8.1999, after introduction of section 7(E) & (F) of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 by way of amendment in 1989, the State Government ought not to allow permission to private secondary training schools or private training colleges or recognize such college or school to impart such training. Opposite Party No. 1 admitted about all the litigations as narrated by the petitioner in its counter. 11. On the other hand it is stated by O.P. No. 1 in the counter that after the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, opposite party No. 1 cannot reject the application of the petitioner on 16.6.2015 keeping in view the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court. But as per Regulation 7(5) of the NCTE Act, the State Government with detail reasons had refused to extend recognition to the petitioner and there is restriction to allow private institutions to start B.Ed. courses as per the amended provision of Odisha Education Act, 1969. The State Government had decided to increase intake of existing teachers training institutes in the State of Odisha, to establish B.Ed. college at Keonjhar and five new colleges in the districts of Malkangiri, Nawrangpur, Rayagada, Sundargarh. Also the opposite party No. 1 has requested the NCTE to consider increase of additional intake in the existing teachers training institutions in Odisha. Opposite Party No. 1 has stated in the counter-affidavit that Indira Gandhi National Open University has entered in an MoU with the State Government to impart B.Ed. course and utilize the Government institutions for tutorial classes of 100 students. 12. Opposite Party No. 1 has stated in the counter-affidavit that Indira Gandhi National Open University has entered in an MoU with the State Government to impart B.Ed. course and utilize the Government institutions for tutorial classes of 100 students. 12. Opposite Party No. 1 has also admitted in the counter that there is a need for trained teachers since the public notice of the NCTE dated 27.2.2015 contains list of states other than the state of Odisha, purportedly for not accepting applications for recognition of teacher training courses. As the B.Ed. course became two years course from this year, the intake capacity of existing teacher training institutes for D.El. Ed. courses was 3,350 during 2013-15 which is increased to 6600 during academic year 2015-16. Opposite Party No. 1 has annexed number of institutions which included the State Universities Government Autonomous Colleges. The State managed Universities and Government colleges are to start the two year B.Ed. course or four integrated B.A., B.Ed., B.Sc. to fill up the gap of mismatch of trained teachers in the State. 13. Opposite Party No. 1 has stated that on 10.2.2014 there was decision taken for recognition by the Government to amend the Odisha Education (Amendment) Act, 1989 as Sections 7(E) and 7(F) which have prohibited the private institutions from imparting teachers training courses. Now the matter has been referred to the Law Department but the Law Department has returned the file after giving green signal to amend the provision of Odisha Education Act. In the additional counter-affidavit, O.P. No. 1 has submitted that the file has been lying with the State Government to take further course of action in this regard. It is further stated that the decision in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra) can be distinguished as the factual back ground of that case is different from the factual background of the present case. So the opposite party No. 1 reported that there is no infirmity in the order dated 16.6.2014 in rejecting the request of the petitioner. SUBMISSIONS: 14. Mr. Y. Dash, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the action of the opposite party No. 1 rejecting the proposal for grant of NOC in favour of the petitioner to open the B.Ed. course and another course, is illegal and arbitrary. SUBMISSIONS: 14. Mr. Y. Dash, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the action of the opposite party No. 1 rejecting the proposal for grant of NOC in favour of the petitioner to open the B.Ed. course and another course, is illegal and arbitrary. He further submitted that in spite of direction of this Court in several rounds of litigation as detailed in the above paras, the State Government has got antipathy towards the problems of the teachers' community and for that not approving the proposal for opening of B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. courses by the petitioner in its institution although there is clear provision in the Section 8(e)(v) of CUTM Act duly published in the Gazette at the instance of the State Government to establish the school of vocational education and training by the petitioner-university. 15. Mr. Dash submitted that the NCTE Act being legislated in 1993, covering teachers education in the country, would prevail over any other law pertaining to private training colleges and any State legislation repugnant to such legislation as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India, the NCTE Act being the Act of Parliament, will prevail over any Act of State Government. According to him, Section 7(E) & (F) of Odisha Education Act amended in 1989 do not encourage the teachers education, cannot override the provisions of NCTE Act for granting recognition to the persons desirous of opening private education institutions for providing vocational training and education therein. 16. Mr. Dash further submitted that the ratio of students and the Trained Teachers in the State being poor, has remained stale requiring numbers of trained teachers to be appointed for imparting quantitative education to the children. He submitted that according to the decision in the State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others, 2006 (9) SCC 1 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that NCTE Act being in full force, duly enacted by Act of Parliament, covered by entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and in that context, the State legislature cannot encroach upon the field of Parliament and Parliament alone can have the power to accord permission and the State cannot refuse to grant permission to start the B.Ed. and other institutional education course. and other institutional education course. He also drew our attention to recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra) where Their Lordships have observed that NCTE is the Body in granting recognition and ensuring maintenance of standard of education in teachers training institution and the statute being special statute, has overriding effect over the University Acts and other teachers training laws made by the State under Schedule VII List 3 of entry No. 25. In view of such pronouncement of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the provisions in Odisha Education Act and any other laws thereto become otiose for the teachers' training. He further submitted that the plea of the opposite party about amendment of section 7(E) & (F) of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 does never require any amendment when the concerned field is regulated by the Act of Parliament, i.e., NCTE Act. Countering the allegations of State Government, he stated that the State Government has nothing to do but to forward his application to the Regional Director, NCTE who should approve the opening of such courses in the CUTEM. Mr. Dash, learned senior counsel submitted that after disposal of the writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No. 10717 of 2013 by this Court, Civil Appeal No. 7751 of 2013 was filed and in that appeal, the order of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 10717 of 2013 was set aside and Their Lordships directed to follow the decision in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra) and the State Government to take up the matter in accordance with policy decision dated 10.2.2014 and in spite of order of the Apex Court, the State Government is dillydallying the process of recognition and trying hard to throw the matter into cold storage by taking a plea that the file has been moved to State Government for decision. On the other hand the policy dated 10.2.2014 is fully in favour of the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the policy decision of 10.2.2014 with regard to establishment of the institution as prayed by the petitioner, could be considered but the State Government rejected it without assigning any reason. Moreover, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that two criteria as enshrined by the Hon'ble Apex Court, having been fulfilled, petitioner is entitled to open the courses in B.Ed. Moreover, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that two criteria as enshrined by the Hon'ble Apex Court, having been fulfilled, petitioner is entitled to open the courses in B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. courses in its institution after being duly recommended. Therefore, he submitted to allow the writ petition and to grant reliefs as prayed for. 17. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that without amendment of the Odisha Education Act, no view can be possible to grant NOC to the petitioner to open the aforesaid courses. On the other hand he submitted that the decision reported in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra) and Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (supra) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case for the simple reason that the State Act is in force and holds field. He also submitted that the refusal to grant NOC on the application of the petitioner has been taken only due to presence of section 7(E) & (F) in the Odisha Education Act. After due amendment of the State Act, appropriate action will be taken in the matter of the petitioner and necessary recommendation by the NCTE will be considered to accord necessary permission to the petitioner to commence B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. courses. So he submitted to consider the submission of the State Government and for the present the writ petition may not be considered in favour of the petitioner. 18. Learned counsel for the O.Ps. 2 & 3 fairly submitted that the NCTE has no objection to grant recognition subject to Regulation 7(4) of the NCTE Regulation as the State Government has been already communicated vide letter No. 30456 dt. 10.8.2015 for considering commencement of B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. courses by the petitioner. He submitted that NCTE is only waiting for the reply by the State Government as to refusal of NOC (No Objection Certificate) or granting of NOC so as to allow the NCTE to go ahead with the proposal of the petitioner to open such course in their University. Points for determination: 19. After hearing rival contentions, the following points emerge for determination: (i) whether the NCTE Act will override State legislation and if so, what will be the consequence? (ii) Is the petitioner entitled to the relief prayed for? DISCUSSION: POINT No. 1 20. Points for determination: 19. After hearing rival contentions, the following points emerge for determination: (i) whether the NCTE Act will override State legislation and if so, what will be the consequence? (ii) Is the petitioner entitled to the relief prayed for? DISCUSSION: POINT No. 1 20. It is not disputed that the petitioner is an University created by the statute called 'CUTM Act' duly enacted by the State legislature. It is also not disputed that the objects of the petitioner-University as per section 8(e)(v) of the CUTM Act is to establish school of vocational education and training as constituent units of the University. It is also not disputed that section 8(a) of the CUTM Act enshrines that objects of the petitioner-University is to disseminate and advance knowledge by providing academic and research facilities in such branches of which includes, Engineering and Technology, Humanities and Social Science, Management, Law, Medical Science, Genetics, Vocational Education and Training, Tribal and Development studies and in other fields as it may deem fit. It is also the admitted fact that the Jagannath Institute of Technology and Management (JITM) being a constituent college by the petitioner-University, submitted on-line application in response to public notice of NCTE inviting applications for recognition of the B.Ed., B.P.Ed. (Teacher Training Courses) in the academic year 2012-13 and followed for subsequent years including for 2016-17. It is also admitted that on 17.1.2012 the opposite party instead of sending its recommendation for grant of recognition for conducting B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. (Teacher Training Courses) rejected the proposal of the petitioner-University for grant of recognition and W.P.(C) No. 2676 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner to set aside such order, wherein the Court asked O.P. No. 1 to reconsider the letters issued by the NCTE within a period of two weeks. It is also not disputed that O.P. No. 1 asked the NCTE not to grant recognition to the petitioner-University to start such academic courses and again in W.P.(C) No. 1363 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner against the inaction by O.P. No. 1, on 19.12.2012 wherein this Court directed the NCTE to take a decision within a period of four weeks. But the NCTE on 29.11.2012 refused to grant recognition basing on the letter dated 13.8.2012 of O.P. No. 1. But the NCTE on 29.11.2012 refused to grant recognition basing on the letter dated 13.8.2012 of O.P. No. 1. It is also admitted that against such refusal, petitioner preferred statutory appeal under section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 and the appellate authority remanded the matter to the NCTE to process the application of the petitioner as and when it submits NOC from the State Government. It is admitted fact that the petitioner was compelled to file third round litigation vide W.P.(C) No. 10717 of 2013 before this Court and this Court upheld the decision of the opposite parties for not recommending the case of the petitioner to grant recognition to open B.Ed. course but being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred S.L.P. (Civil) No. 36932 of 2013 before the Hon'ble Apex Court where the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 6.5.2014 set aside the order of this Court and by allowing the appeal, issued mandamus directing the opposite party-State and NCTE to pass fresh orders in accordance with the judgment in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra) and in terms of the policy decision of the State Government recorded in the meeting dated 10.2.2014. 21. It is the bone of contention of Mr. Dash, learned senior counsel that in the decision Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court have been pleased to observe that the State Government has no role after the commencement of the NCTE Act, 1993. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that in view of section 7(E) & (F) of the Odisha Education Act, 1969, no private Secondary Training School or Colleges can be rendered recognition by the State and same stand would be allowed to be continued until the concerned provisions are amended. At the same time, learned counsel for the NCTE stressed on the point that in spite of NCTE's positive attitude, the State Government has sat over the matter. It is, therefore, necessary to find out what is the role of the State Government after the NCTE Act covering the field of training of teachers is enacted. 22. At the same time, learned counsel for the NCTE stressed on the point that in spite of NCTE's positive attitude, the State Government has sat over the matter. It is, therefore, necessary to find out what is the role of the State Government after the NCTE Act covering the field of training of teachers is enacted. 22. Section 7(E) and (F) of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 are reproduced below: "7-E. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, on and after the commencement of the Orissa education (Amendment) Act, 1989; the State Government shall not accord permission for establishment of any, Private Secondary Training School or Private Training College or recognize any such School or recognize any such School or College established, if any, prior to the said date. 7-F Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made there under or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court the State Government shall not be bound to accord permission for establishment of any Private Secondary Training School or Private Training College, or recognize any such school or College established, if any, prior to the 14th day of August, 1989 and non-recognition of such school or college shall not be questioned in any Court of Law of otherwise be open to challenge." 23. The aforesaid provisions deny to grant recognition or permission to the private training colleges or secondary training school or extend recognition to such schools or colleges for such purposes where they are established after 14.8.1989. 24. NCTE Act came into force in 1993 covering the field of education policy and imparting training for such courses with regard to the Education and of course Regulation of NCTE covering Recognition Norms and Procedure came into force in 2009. The said NCTE Act is enacted with a view to achieving plan and coordinated development of the teacher education system through out the country, regulating proper maintenance of schools and standard in teaching education system and the matters connected there with. It is said at the Bar that after the NCTE Act, 1993 has come into force, there is no amendment of section 7(E) & (F) of the Act. Of course, learned counsel for the State submitted that the file with regard to the amendment of provision of Education Act is lying with the State Government. It is said at the Bar that after the NCTE Act, 1993 has come into force, there is no amendment of section 7(E) & (F) of the Act. Of course, learned counsel for the State submitted that the file with regard to the amendment of provision of Education Act is lying with the State Government. We are least concerned with amendment of concerned provision of State legislation as it is domain of State legislature. Here, the law on the question, is no more res integra. It is reported in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others (supra) at paragraphs 74, 75 and 76 where Their Lordships observed as under: "74. It is thus clear that the Central Government has considered the subject of secondary education and higher education at the national level. The Act of 1993 also requires Parliament to consider teacher-education system "throughout the country". NCTE, therefore, in our opinion, is expected to deal with applications for establishing new B.Ed. colleges or allowing increase in intake capacity, keeping in view the 1993 Act and planned and coordinated development of teacher-education system in the country. It is neither open to the State Government nor to a university to consider the local conditions or apply "State policy" to refuse such permission. In fact, as held by this Court in cases referred to hereinabove, the State Government has no power to reject the prayer of an institution or to overrule the decision of NCTE. The action of the State Government, therefore, was contrary to law and has rightly been set aside by the High Court. 75. The decision relied on by Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh v. State of Maharashtra has no application to the facts of the case. In that case, the power was with the State Government to grant or refuse permission to open B.Ed. college. Considering the fact that if permission would be granted, there would be large-scale unemployment, it was decided by the State Government not to allow new BEd colleges to be opened. It was held by this Court that such policy decision could not be said to be arbitrary or otherwise unreasonable. The Court in that case was not concerned with the power or authority of the State Government vis-à-vis the Central Government and the Act of Parliament. It was held by this Court that such policy decision could not be said to be arbitrary or otherwise unreasonable. The Court in that case was not concerned with the power or authority of the State Government vis-à-vis the Central Government and the Act of Parliament. In the present case, as the field was fully occupied by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII to the Constitution and Parliament has enacted the 1993 Act, it was not open to the State Legislature to exercise power by making an enactment. Such enactment, as per the decisions of this Court, would be void and inoperative. It would be unthinkable that if the State Legislature could not have encroached upon a field occupied by Parliament, it could still exercise power by executive fiat by refusing permission under the "policy consideration". The contention of the State Government, therefore, has to be negatived. 76. We may state at this stage that the contesting respondents have placed heavy reliance on Section 12 of the Act which relates to functions of the Council and submitted that it is incumbent on the Council to lay down norms and guidelines for ensuring planned and coordinated development of the teacher education and it is not open to the Council to delegate those "essential functions" to the State Government. According to them, such delegation would be excessive and impermissible and abdication of power by the Council in favour of the State Government which is inconsistent with the provisions of the parent Act and must be held ultra vires. In reply, Mr. Andhyarujina submitted that the constitutional validity of the regulations or guidelines had not been challenged before the High Court and the respondents now cannot be permitted to raise such point in this Court in the absence of the challenge. The respondents, however, urged that since they succeeded before the High Court on other points, it was not necessary for them to challenge the vires of the Regulations. But when the State had approached this Court, they can support the judgment on any ground available to them including unconstitutionality of regulations and guidelines. The respondents, however, urged that since they succeeded before the High Court on other points, it was not necessary for them to challenge the vires of the Regulations. But when the State had approached this Court, they can support the judgment on any ground available to them including unconstitutionality of regulations and guidelines. In our opinion, it is not necessary to enter into the larger question since we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in allowing the petitions filed by the colleges and setting aside the order dated 28-12-2004 passed by the State Government and also in dismissing the petition filed by the State holding that the order of the State was not legal. We may, however, observe that the learned counsel for NCTE, Mr. Raju Ramachandran is right in submitting that the guidelines permitted the State Government to collect necessary data and materials and make them available to NCTE so as to enable NCTE to take an appropriate decision. In accordance with the provisions of the 1993 Act, final decision can be taken only by NCTE and once a decision is taken by NCTE, it has to be implemented by all authorities in the light of the provisions of the Act and the law declared by this Court. It has been so held in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute." 25. With great respect to the said decision, we are of the considered view that as the field was fully occupied by entry 66 of List I of the Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and Parliament has enacted NCTE Act, the State legislature cannot exercise power of making enactment in this field inasmuch as the State legislature cannot encroach upon the field occupied by the Parliament for which refusal or granting permission by the State Government is out of bound. 26. In the decision in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra) Their Lordships at paragraphs 77 to 79 held as under: "77. The fields which are sought to be covered under the provisions of Section 37 of the Universities Act and the statutes of various universities are clearly common to the aspects which are squarely covered by the specific language under the Act. The fields which are sought to be covered under the provisions of Section 37 of the Universities Act and the statutes of various universities are clearly common to the aspects which are squarely covered by the specific language under the Act. That being so, all State laws in regard to affiliation insofar as they are covered by the Act must give way to the operation of the provisions of the Act. To put it simply, the requirements which have been examined and the conditions which have been imposed by NCTE shall prevail and cannot be altered, re-examined or infringed under the garb of the State law. The affiliating/examining body and the State Government must abide by the proficiency and command of NCTE's directions. To give an example, existence of building, library, qualified staff, financial stability of the institution, accommodation, etc. are the subjects which are specifically covered under Section 14(3)(b) of the Act. Thus, they would not be open to re-examination by the State and the university. If the recognition itself was conditional and those conditions have not been satisfied, in such circumstances, within the ambit and scope of Sections 46 and 16 of the Act, the affiliating body may not give affiliation and inform NCTE forthwith of the shortcomings and non-compliance with the conditions. In such situation, both the Central and the State body should act in tandem and, with due coordination, come to a final conclusion as to the steps which are required to be taken in regard to both recognition and affiliation. But certainly, the State Government and the university cannot act in derogation to NCTE. 78. Now, we may deal with another aspect of this very facet of the case. It is a very pertinent issue as to what the role of the State should be after the affiliation is granted by the affiliating body. We have already discussed that the State opinion, as contemplated under Section 37 of the University Act, to the extent it admits to overreach, is reconcilable and its results are not in its orientation to the directives of NCTE are void and inoperative to the extent they can be resolved in which case clear precedence is to be given to the directives of NCTE during such resolution. The opinion of the State, therefore, has to be read and construed to mean that it would keep the factors determined by NCTE intact and then examine the matter for grant of affiliation. The role of the State Government is minimised at this stage which, in fact, is a second stage. It should primarily be for the university to determine the grant or refusal of affiliation and role of the State should be the bare minimum, non-interfering and non-infringing. 79. It is on record and the Regulations framed under the Act clearly show that upon receiving an application for recommendation, 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 is called 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 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 vis-à-vis the State Government as well as the affiliating body. Normally, these questions cannot be reagitated 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 the life of the students working in the school because of non-compliance with 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." 27. 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." 27. With due respect with the above ratio dicidendi, we are of the considered view, that the State Government has a limited role in processing the application of the petitioner as provided under the provision of the NCTE Act, 1993, i.e., consultation by NCTE with the State and NCTE has got absolute discretion in granting recognition to the course pertaining teachers training (B.Ed.) and D.El.Ed. courses to be commenced by petitioner-University. It revealed from Annexure-7 that under provisions of NCTE Act, 1993, NCTE has issued public notice inviting applications for conducting teachers training courses only after consultation with all States because States where particular teacher training courses are adequate have been displayed vide Annexure-7 for which applications will not be accepted. State of Odisha not being in any such list, NCTE has invited to receive applications from institutions of concerned States including Odisha whose names did not find place in Annexure-7. The aforesaid decisions being the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, are binding being the law of the land, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Since the Central legislation, i.e., NCTE Act, 1993 covers the field of teachers education by NCTE, the said State enactment is void to the said extent. Now adverting to the case of the petitioner, it appears the Hon'ble Apex Court in the S.L.P. (Civil) No. 36932 of 2013 have categorically directed to follow the decision of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra). 28. After analysing all these decisions and since the law of the land is binding on all the courts and the State Governments, we are of the considered view that Odisha Education Act, 1969 can not encroach on the field of NCTE Act. In fact the doctrine of occupied field as has been decided in the decision in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others (supra), it is neither open for the State Government nor to an University to consider the legal conditions or comply with the State policy to refuse permission. In fact the doctrine of occupied field as has been decided in the decision in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others (supra), it is neither open for the State Government nor to an University to consider the legal conditions or comply with the State policy to refuse permission. In fact the field of teachers training being fully occupied by Entry 66, List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and Parliament having enacted NCTE Act in 1993, it is not open to the State legislature to exercise power of any enactment making provisions on the said field. In view of the aforesaid decision, the Odisha Education Act or any policy making thereby by the State Government, would be void and inoperative. Similarly in view of the decision of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra) State laws in regard to subjects in so far as they are covered by the NCTE Act, must give way to the operation of the provisions of NCTE Act. On the other hand the requirements which have been examined and conditions which have been imposed by the NCTE Act shall prevail and cannot be altered, re-examined or infringed under the garb of State law. So the NCTE Act vis-à-vis Odisha Education Act, 1969 or amendment thereof in 1989, it is NCTE Act would be followed for considering application of the petitioner for such B.Ed., D.El.Ed. and any other teacher training courses. Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly. POINT No. II 29. Section 14(1) of NCTE Act speaks about application to be submitted by Institutions desirous to start B.Ed. and other teacher training courses to NCTE. and any other teacher training courses. Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly. POINT No. II 29. Section 14(1) of NCTE Act speaks about application to be submitted by Institutions desirous to start B.Ed. and other teacher training courses to NCTE. Section 14(3) of the NCTE Act enshrines: "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 if 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 may be determined by regulations; or (b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfill 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." "Section 15(1) of the NCTE Act speaks: Where any recognized institution intends to start any new course or training in teacher education, it may make an application to seek permission therefore to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations. (2) xx xx xx (3) On receipt of an application from an institution under Sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the recognized institution such other particulars as may be considered necessary, the Regional Committee shall,- (a) if it is satisfied that such recognized institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory, and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper conduct of the new course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting permission, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulation; or (b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfill the requirements laid down in Sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing permission to such institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that before passing an order refusing permission under Sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the institution concerned for making a written representation." 30. In view of the aforesaid clear provisions of the NCTE Act and the judge made law as discussed above, there is no hesitation to hold that the petitioner's relief squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the provisions of NCTE Act, 1993. Issue No. II is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION: 31. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the facts and circumstances and the law as discussed above, we are of the considered view that NCTE Act must be followed by the opposite parties in letter and spirit. We, therefore, direct that the O.Ps. 2 & 3 shall deal with the application of the petitioner under the provisions of the NCTE Act on its own merit within a period of four weeks from today for granting permission/recognition to the petitioner to commence B.Ed., D.El.Ed. or any other teacher training courses as applied for, for the academic year 2016-17 onwards. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. I. Mahanty, J : I agree.