JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Bhattacharya assisted by Mr. Biswas and Mr. Aninda Bhattacharya representing the writ petitioner. Heard also Dr. Saha Roy appearing for Gourbanga University, and Mr. Basu Mallick assisted by Mr. Pandit for the State. 2. Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that the merits of this case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this court yesterday in WP No.12390(W) of 2017. In ventilating the grievance Mr. Bhattacharya apprised the court that the writ petitioner after going through the selection process for appointment of teacher held in the year 2008 joined in one Dhuliyan High Madrasah on November 1, 2008 as a teacher for the subject Philosophy having his qualifications BA (Hons) in Philosophy and MA in Philosophy. Submitted that in the year 2016 taking consent of school authority the petitioner had applied for joining in the B.Ed. regular training course through Gour Malda College of Education affiliated under the University of Gour Banga. 3. The cause behind filing of this writ petition is, Mr. Bhattacharya argued, that despite allowing to undergo with the first semester course and to sit in the examination, the university declined to provide registration number. According to him, the writ petition should be allowed by issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus in terms of the prayers made therein. 4. Dr Saha Roy restricted his submission to the circular being No.456 dated May 11, 2012 and apprised the court that since the writ petitioner was in-service school teacher, therefore he ought to have adopted only ODL method, i.e. through Open and Distance Learning mode in getting B.Ed degree. 5. Mr. Basu Mallick submitted that he would have nothing to add on either way. 6. Though the State circular has dealt with other eligibility criteria, particularly in the matter of having fifty per cent marks either in graduation or postgraduate level, the same is no longer dealt with separately in this case, since it has already been dealt with by this court in WP No.12390(W) of 2017 and the answer shall be covered by that judgment. 7. It is obvious that the guidelines, as from time to time are circulated by the concerned department, of course, not derogating from the mainstream of the Act and connected rules in the matter, are to regulate the system, so that there may not be any chaos or indiscipline in the management of the institution. 7. It is obvious that the guidelines, as from time to time are circulated by the concerned department, of course, not derogating from the mainstream of the Act and connected rules in the matter, are to regulate the system, so that there may not be any chaos or indiscipline in the management of the institution. But any such guideline cannot be accepted as the sole and one strictest law for all the time to come. Whenever any new system is introduced, there may be either some saving clause or some exception clause, particularly when in the case of undergoing with some specialised training courses like B.Ed etc. If the institution considers that sending any teacher will benefit the school or its subjects in the long run, and in permitting such a teacher there may not be any sufferance to the institution or the students for the time being for having sufficient infrastructure, then cloaked with said permission if any teacher undertakes such training course, then obviously such guideline cannot come on the way to prevent such a teacher from undertaking and completing the training course by other than ODL mode. Had there been no permission, then there might have been a scope to consider consequence of taking of such training course as a regular candidate in other way. There is the difference lying between the guidelines and the rules, and obviously the guidelines cannot take place of the rule or the law, because had there been any exception, that is to be considered in the perspective of the facts and circumstances of the case attributed thereto. 8. In the case on hand the Government of West Bengal under the signature of the Assistant Secretary of the Higher Education Department issued a letter to the university like Calcutta University intimating as follows: “In forwarding herewith a copy of the Gazette of India bearing No.F. No.51-1/2009/NCTE (N & S) dtd. 23.07.2010, I am directed to say that the requirement of fifty percent marks shall not apply for persons appointed as teachers prior to the commencement of the National Council for Teacher Education (Regulations Norms and procedure) Second Amendment Regulations, 2010 as laid down at para 8(i) of the aforesaid gazette and to request you to take necessary action accordingly.” 9. 23.07.2010, I am directed to say that the requirement of fifty percent marks shall not apply for persons appointed as teachers prior to the commencement of the National Council for Teacher Education (Regulations Norms and procedure) Second Amendment Regulations, 2010 as laid down at para 8(i) of the aforesaid gazette and to request you to take necessary action accordingly.” 9. Therefore, in view of the observations already made above, in the second part under clause I of the circular (No.456) (supra) the writ petitioner had no deficiency to come in the eligibility list for undergoing with the B.Ed. training course; and that is why though his name was placed on June 21, 2016 in the not-eligible list by the University of Gour Banga within three days thereafter, the same university brought name of the writ petitioner back to the final merit list for deputed candidate to undertake B.Ed training course 2016. Not only that, in the meeting of the B.Ed admission committee presided by its Chairman and Joint Convenors considered the application of the writ petitioner and after considering they allowed his candidature with the observation as follows:– “…….he will be allowed to continue the B.Ed. Course on special consideration. It was also resolved that the instance of Md. Anwar Hossain will not be treated as precedence by anyone in future.” 10. After all this, it is really surprising to the court of equity as to how and why the university kept the registration number of the writ petitioner withheld. Taking note of such deal of the university in a clandestine manner the court could not remain shy but to deprecate so that the university be restrained from playing with the career of the students who are coming to undergo with the courses through the respective college affiliated under the university as was already tested in dealing with WP No.12390(W) of 2017. 11. In this case, the writ petitioner obtained the certificate of release by which he was allowed to undergo with the B.Ed training course for the session 2016-18 and he was released accordingly from the school by the headmaster who was the best person to consider about the welfare of the institution. 11. In this case, the writ petitioner obtained the certificate of release by which he was allowed to undergo with the B.Ed training course for the session 2016-18 and he was released accordingly from the school by the headmaster who was the best person to consider about the welfare of the institution. As it has already been observed by this court that when this type of permission, either from the institution or from the other concerned authority, would be with the candidate, the simple guidelines under reference must not come in the way to deprive that candidate or to prevent him from exercising his right to education by also other than ODL mode which is guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The act and action of the university by withholding registration of the writ petitioner in one way has endangered the right to education of the writ petitioner as well which is not approved by the court with the hope that in future the university will take special care, so that any candidate, like the writ petitioner, should not be compelled to knock the door of the court. 12. However, considering involvement of the educational institution this court refrains from imposing costs. The writ petition is allowed with direction upon the respondents no.3-6 to publish the result of the semesters of the petitioner lying pending as a consequence of this case and also allow him to complete the rest semesters of B.Ed course like other candidates by supplying registration number immediately so that the court may not have entertained again the similar complaint. No order as to costs. Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties.