ORDER : Prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondent-National Council for Teacher Education (in short, NCTE) to grant recognition to the petitioner- Bethesda Women Teachers' Training College for two years' M.Ed. programme from the academic session 2017-18. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner-college, which was running teachers' training programme for women, was granted recognition on 29.02.1993 for B.Ed course. The college was declared a minority institute by the National Council for Minority Educational Institutions on 14.02.2008. It has submitted online application on 14.07.2015 for recognition for two years' M.Ed. programme (additional course); hard copy of the application was submitted to NCTE on 24.07.2015. Before that, the college submitted an application to the Ranchi University for N.O.C which was followed by reminders dated 27.06.2015, 03.10.2015 and 04.12.2015. In the meantime, in response to its application for recognition for M.Ed. programme, a show-cause notice was issued by the respondent-NCTE indicating two deficiencies in the said application; N.O.C was issued prior to 15.07.2015 and NAAC LOI dated 01.01.2002 being too old was not acceptable. Finally, on the aforesaid grounds the application for grant of recognition was declined vide order dated 25.05.2016. This order was challenged by the petitioners before the appellate authority which has held that the order refusing recognition on the ground that NAAC LOI accredition was very old was not justified. However, the rejection order dated 25.05.2016 was not interfered on the ground that the college has failed to submit N.O.C prior to due date as prescribed under Clause 5(3) of National Council for Teacher Education (Regulation Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2014. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Plea taken by the petitioners is that on account of delay and laches on the part of the Ranchi University and NCTE both, it cannot be denied recognition for M.Ed. course from the academic session 2018-19. Mr. Subhashis Rasik Soren, the learned counsel for the petitioners referring to order dated 09.08.2017 of High Court of Delhi passed in L.P.A No. 535 of 2017 (National Council for Teacher Education and another Vs. Rambha College of Education) submits that the petitioner-college, which has submitted its application for recognition for M.Ed. course on 14.07.2015 and was granted N.O.C on 09.04.2016, cannot be refused recognition for two years' M.Ed. course at least from the academic session 2018-19, notwithstanding the cut-off date of 03.03.2018. 4. Mr. Rambha College of Education) submits that the petitioner-college, which has submitted its application for recognition for M.Ed. course on 14.07.2015 and was granted N.O.C on 09.04.2016, cannot be refused recognition for two years' M.Ed. course at least from the academic session 2018-19, notwithstanding the cut-off date of 03.03.2018. 4. Mr. P.A.S Pati, the learned counsel for the respodnent-NCTE submits that under the regulations submission of N.O.C for processing the application for grant of recognition is a mandatory condition which must be submitted by the applicant before the last date for submission of the application. It is submitted that after the Special Leave Petition (Civil)-Diary No(s).42238 of 2017 challenging order passed in Rambha College of Education was dismissed on 25.01.2018 by the Supreme Court, letter dated 12.02.2018 was issued from the headquarters for processing all pending applications and immediately thereafter all such applications were processed. 5. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent-Ranchi University referring to the stand taken in the counter-affidavit dated 15.02.2018 submits that there was no delay on the part of the University in processing the application for N.O.C. After NAAC LOI accredition was submitted by the petitioner-college through its letter dated 26.02.2016, immediately thereafter by order dated 10.03.2016 a committee was constituted for inspection of the college which submitted its report on 08.04.2016 and the University has issued N.O.C dated 09.04.2016. 6. The facts disclosed in the present proceeding would indicate that while recognition to the college for two years' M.Ed. programme perhaps could not have been granted from the academic session 2017-18, recognition for running this programme from 2018-19 has not been granted to the college on account of unexplained delay on the part of the respondent-NCTE. In the first place the respondent-Ranchi University which has taken a stand that the college submitted NAAC LOI accredition only on 26.02.2016, in its counter-affidavit has conveniently not referred to the several reminder letters written by the college. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the objection which for the first time has been taken in the counter-affidavit, had it been indicated earlier to the college, it would have taken further steps in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the objection which for the first time has been taken in the counter-affidavit, had it been indicated earlier to the college, it would have taken further steps in the matter. The stand taken by the respondent-NCTE, that only after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed against the order passed by a Division Bench of High Court of Delhi pending applications were processed, does not appear to be correct or at least in consonance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others” reported in (2013) 2 SCC 617 . In paragraph no.87.3 of the reported judgment, the Supreme Court has clarified that recognition granted after 03.03.2013 shall be valid for the academic year 2014-15. The petitioner-college which was granted N.O.C by the Ranchi University on 09.04.2016 fulfilled all necessary conditions for grant of recognition from the academic session 2017-18. The college has satisfied the aforesaid condition even before the appellate authority rejected its appeal by order dated 02.12.2016. 7. Stand taken by the respondent-NCTE, that in violation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya case it could not have granted recognition for M.Ed. course from the academic session 2018-19, is nothing but a pretention to conceal its own faults. After the college was issued N.O.C by the Ranchi University on 09.04.2016 or at least after the appellate authority's order, no step for processing the application for recognition was taken by NCTE; the college was not required to take any step at that time or till LOI was issued to it (refer order dated 19.02.2018). In fact, NCTE has violated the directions issued by the Supreme Court under paragraph no.87.3 in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya case. In the garb of judgment in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya the respondent-NCTE has acted in a manner which cannot be countenanced in law. 8. Before by an order of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice this writ petition was posted for hearing before me -on 29.11.2017 a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the matter to be posted before another Bench -way back on 17.04.2017 another co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted 3 weeks' time for filing counter-affidavit in the matter. 8. Before by an order of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice this writ petition was posted for hearing before me -on 29.11.2017 a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the matter to be posted before another Bench -way back on 17.04.2017 another co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted 3 weeks' time for filing counter-affidavit in the matter. After 4 adjournments thereafter, when the matter was listed on 29.01.2018 it was again adjourned at the instance of the learned counsel for the respondent-NCTE for producing copies of NCTE Regulations. Order dated 30.01.2018 notices the time-line for submission of application for grant of recognition and also order dated 17.04.2017 passed in the present proceeding by which the respondents were given a time-line for filing counter-affidavit. Order dated 30.01.2018 also records that after the respondents were granted time for filing counter-affidavit vide order dated 17.04.2017 the writ petition was listed on 4 occasions, however, complete facts were not brought on record by the respondent-NCTE. Though, by that time decision in Rambha College of Education was not brought to notice of this Court, a prima-facie opinion on sustainability of the appellate order dated 02.12.2016 on a similar reasoning was recorded in order dated 30.01.2018 itself. 9. In the above background, when the matter was posted on 19.02.2018 this Court made an observation that all necessary formalities shall be completed on or before the cut-off date-03.03.2018, and noticing delay caused in the mean-time, it was observed that if the petitioner college fulfills all the requirements, the cut-off date-03.03.2018 shall not be a hurdle for granting recognition to the petitioner-college for the academic session 2018-2020. 10. Now, it has come on record that in the meeting held on 28.02.2018 a decision was taken to issue Letter of Intent to the college and accordingly, LOI was issued to it for submitting requisite documents. Proceeding of 252nd meeting of ERC-NCTE records that the institutions which are already recognized for B.Ed and D.EL.Ed. course(s) and sought recognition for additional course/additional intake are required to furnish the previous faculty list along with compliance of LOI. Vide Annexure-F to the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 23.03.2018 the respondent-NCTE has brought on record a copy of letter dated 01.03.2018 along with which the college had submitted necessary documents to the Eastern Regional Committee. However, vide letter dated 03.03.2018 again a show-cause notice was issued, which was more technical in nature. Vide Annexure-F to the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 23.03.2018 the respondent-NCTE has brought on record a copy of letter dated 01.03.2018 along with which the college had submitted necessary documents to the Eastern Regional Committee. However, vide letter dated 03.03.2018 again a show-cause notice was issued, which was more technical in nature. The college satisfies all the norms and conditions for grant of recognition for two years' M.Ed. course is now an admitted fact; it has been granted recognition for M.Ed. course for the academic session 2019-21. 11. The above chronology of events would unerringly indicate that reluctance of NCTE to follow directions of the High Court of Delhi and of this Court has resulted in loss of one academic session to the petitioner-college and may be to other college(s)/institute(s) also. There are several orders passed by the Supreme Court and different High Courts granting recognition beyond the cut-off date of 3rd March. Still, it appears in every case NCTE raising a rhetoric of cut-off date rushes to Hon'ble Supreme Court. Had letter dated 12.02.2018, which according to the learned counsel for the respondent-NCTE was issued from the headquarters after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition challenging the order passed by the High Court of Delhi, been issued immediately after the decision in L.P.A. No.535 of 2017 (Rambha College of Education case) cause of the college(s)/institute(s) such as the petitioner-college would not have been frustrated. In the process, the respondent-NCTE has not only flouted the directions issued by this Court -by not taking a decision in the matter before the cut-off date -it has failed to follow the directions of the Supreme Court in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya case for granting recognition for the subsequent academic session. Directions issued in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya case confer a right in the applicants to insist upon processing of their applications within the time-frame and NCTE is under a duty to process the applications for grant of recognition without issuing frivolous show-cause notices. In a matter in which delay of one day beyond the cut-off date deprives a college/institute one full academic year, NCTE must display fairness in its action. 12. In a matter in which delay of one day beyond the cut-off date deprives a college/institute one full academic year, NCTE must display fairness in its action. 12. It is really distressing that inspite of observation of this Court in order dated 28.03.2018 for communicating the final decision to the petitioner-college by two weeks, the college was granted recognition vide order dated 10.05.2018 and a copy of this order has been brought on record only along with affidavit dated 21.06.2018 filed today. By issuing letter dated 12.02.2018 and processing pending application of the college for recognition for M. Ed course thereafter, the respondent-NCTE admits that the decision in Rambha College of Education squarelly covers the case of the petitioner-college. The NCTE has now granted recognition for M.Ed. course, but from the academic sessions 2019-20. In the process, however, not only observations and directions of this Court have been flouted by the respondent-NCTE, today at this juncture no direction can be issued for modifying the order granting recognition to the college. In view of the process for admission in M.Ed. course, academic calender, curriculum etc., no relief can now be granted to the petitioners and accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. With a note of caution to NCTE to frame a policy to ensure that in “covered matters” applications for recognition are processed promptly, the writ petition stands disposed of.