JUDGMENT : The 1st petitioner is the Educational Agency and the 2nd petitioner is the Principal of CSI College of Education, Parassala. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent University to grant affiliation to their college to commence M.Ed. programme from the academic session 2018-19. Presently, on the basis of the recognition granted by the 3rd respondent National Council for Teacher Education (for brevity, 'NCTE') and the affiliation granted by the 2nd respondent University, the College is conducting B.Ed. programme. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent University, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent State, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent University and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent NCTE. 4. As borne out from the pleadings and materials on record, the petitioners have already secured Ext.P4 order of recognition dated 03.03.2018 from the 3rd respondent NCTE for conducting M.Ed. programme of two year duration in their College, with an intake of 50 students, from the academic session 2018-19, under Regulation 7(16) of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014, subject to fulfillment of the conditions stipulated therein. The petitioners secured Ext.P4 recognition for conducting M.Ed. programme, based on Ext.P1 no-objection certificate dated 17.08.2015 granted by the 1st respondent State and Ext.P3 no-objection certificate dated 04.07.2016 granted by the 2nd respondent University. 5. Ext.P5 notice dated 15.01.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent would show that, as per the decision of the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE, the Visiting Team inspected the petitioners College and submitted its report. Ext.P9 communication dated 15.06.2015 of the Southern Regional Director of NCTE addressed to the 1st respondent State would show that, before processing the application made by the petitioners for recognition to conduct M.Ed. programme, NCTE requested the State to furnish its recommendations on that application. Ext.P9 communication dated 15.06.2015 of the Southern Regional Director of NCTE addressed to the 1st respondent State would show that, before processing the application made by the petitioners for recognition to conduct M.Ed. programme, NCTE requested the State to furnish its recommendations on that application. Ext.P6 certificate would show that the petitioners College has been declared as a minority educational institution under Section 2(g) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 and Ext.P7 certificate would show that the National Assessment and Accreditation Council has accredited the petitioners college with Cumulative Grade Point Average (for brevity, 'CGPA') of 2.62 on four point scale at B grade. 6. On getting Ext.P4 recognition from the 3rd respondent NCTE, the petitioners have submitted Ext.P8 request dated 16.04.2018 before the 2nd respondent University for finalising the process of affiliation, so as to enable them to commence M.Ed. programme in their College from the academic session 2018-19. 7. Section 15 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for brevity, 'the NCTE Act') deals with permission for a new course or training by recognised institution. As per sub-section (1) of Section 15, where any recognised institution intends to start any new course or training in teacher education, it may make an application to seek permission therefor to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations. 8. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the NCTE Act, and in supersession of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009, the 3rd respondent made the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (for brevity, 'the NCTE Regulations, 2014'). 9. Regulation 4 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 deals with eligibility for consideration of the application under the said regulations; Regulation 5 deals with the manner of making application and the time limit; Regulation 6 prescribes processing fees; and Regulation 7 deals with processing of applications. As per Regulation 7(4), a written communication along with a copy of the application form submitted by the institution shall be sent by the office of the Regional Committee of NCTE to the State Government or Union Territory Administration and the affiliating body concerned, within thirty days from the receipt of application, in chronological order of the receipt of the original application in the Regional Committee. Regulation 7(5) provides that, on receipt of the communication, the State Government or the Union Territory Administration concerned shall furnish its recommendations or comments to the Regional Committee concerned within forty five days from the date of issue of the letter to the State Government or the Union Territory, as the case may be. In case, the State Government or Union Territory Administration is not in favour of recognition, it shall provide detailed reasons or grounds thereof with necessary statistics, which shall be taken into consideration by the Regional Committee concerned while disposing of the application. Regulation 7(6) provides further that, if the recommendation of the State Government is not received within the period specified under Regulation 7(5), the Regional Committee concerned shall send a reminder to the State Government providing further time of another thirty days to furnish their comments on the proposal. In case no reply is received, a second reminder shall be given for furnishing recommendation within fifteen days from the issue of such second reminder. In case no reply is received from the State Government within the aforesaid period, the Regional Committee shall process and decide the case on merits and placing the application before the Regional Committee shall not be deferred on account of non-receipt of comments or recommendation of the State Government. 10. As per Regulation 7(7) of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, after consideration of the recommendation of the State Government or on its own merits, the Regional Committee concerned shall decide that institution shall be inspected by a team of experts called visiting team, with a view to assess the level of preparedness of the institution to commence the course. In case of open and distance learning programmes, sampled study centres shall be inspected. Inspection shall not be subject to the consent of the institution, rather the decision of the Regional Committee to cause the inspection shall be communicated to the institution with the direction that the inspection shall be caused on any day after ten days from the date of communication by the Regional Office. The Regional Committee shall ensure that inspection is conducted ordinarily within thirty days from the date of its communication to the institution. The Regional Committee shall ensure that inspection is conducted ordinarily within thirty days from the date of its communication to the institution. The institution shall be required to provide details about the infrastructure and other preparedness on the specified proforma available on the website of the Council to the visiting team at the time of inspection, along with building completion certificate issued by the competent civil authority, if not submitted earlier. 11. As per Regulation 7(8) of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, at the time of visit of the team of experts to an institution, the institution concerned shall arrange for the inspection to be videographed in a manner that all important infrastructural and instructional facilities are videographed along with interaction with the management and the faculty, if available at the time of such visit. The visiting teams, as far as possible, shall finalise and courier the reports along with the video recordings on the same day. Regulation 7(9) provides that, the application and the report along with the video recordings or CDs of the visiting team shall be placed before the Regional Committee concerned for consideration and appropriate decision. Regulation 7(10) provides further that, the Regional Committee shall decide grant of recognition or permission to an institution only after satisfying itself that the institution fulfils all the conditions prescribed by the National Council under the Act, Rules or Regulations, including, the norms and standards, laid down for the relevant teacher education programme. Regulation 7(11) mandates that, in the matter of grant of recognition, the Regional Committee shall strictly act within the ambit of the Act, the Regulations made thereunder, including the norms and standards for various teacher education programmes, and shall not make any relaxation thereto. 12. In State of Rajasthan v. LBS B.Ed. College [(2016) 16 SCC 110], after referring to the provisions under Regulation 7 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, the Apex Court reiterated the principle laid down in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (2013) 2 SCC 617 ] that, once the 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 NCTE grants recognition, then such grant attains supremacy vis-a-vis the State Government as well as the affiliating body. Once NCTE grants recognition, then such grant attains supremacy vis-a-vis 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 Acts, without offending the provisions of the NCTE 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 in the institution, because of non-compliance with a substantive condition imposed by either of the bodies; but in the normal circumstances, the role of the State is 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. Paragraphs 14 to 17 of the said judgment read thus : “14. Yet again, another two-Judge Bench in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (2013) 2 SCC 617 ] opined that (SCC p.656, para.79) 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 are called for. The Court observed that this is the stage where the State and its Department should play a vital role and 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-a-vis the State Government as well as the affiliating body. Normally, these questions cannot be reagitated at the time of grant of affiliation. 15. Once it grants recognition, then such grant attains supremacy vis-a-vis the State Government as well as the affiliating body. Normally, these questions cannot be reagitated at the time of grant of affiliation. 15. Proceeding further, in Maa Vaishno Devi case it was held that (SCC p.656, para.79) 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 in the school because of non-compliance of a substantive condition imposed by either of the bodies but 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. 16. As we find from the aforesaid authorities as well as the Regulations framed by NCTE, the State has a say, may be a limited one. We are inclined to use the word 'limited' because the State's say is not binding on NCTE. However, NCTE is required to take the same into consideration, for the State has a vital role to offer proper comments supported by due reasoning. It needs no special emphasis to say that final authority rests with NCTE. It is the clear legal position. 17. In course of hearing, we have been apprised that NCTE has granted recognition to some of the institutions. As the recognition has already been granted, the controversy with regard to the said institutions shall stand closed. Needless to say, in future, whenever an application is received under the Regulations for grant of recognition, NCTE shall be guided by its own Regulations and the judgments of this Court and the State shall remain bound by the principles set out hereinabove. Needless to say, NCTE shall take into consideration the recommendations and views of the State despite the fact that it has the final say.” 13. In LBS B.Ed. College's case the Apex Court held that, under the Regulations framed by NCTE, the State has only a limited say in the matter of recognition, because the State's say is not binding on NCTE. In LBS B.Ed. College's case the Apex Court held that, under the Regulations framed by NCTE, the State has only a limited say in the matter of recognition, because the State's say is not binding on NCTE. However, NCTE is required to take the same into consideration, since the State has a vital role to offer proper comments supported by due reasoning. But the final authority rests with NCTE. 14. In the instant case, the petitioners secured Ext.P4 recognition from the 3rd respondent NCTE for conducting M.Ed. programme of two year duration in their College, with an intake of 50 students, from the academic session 2018-19. The said recognition was secured on the strength of Ext.P1 no-objection certificate granted by the 1st respondent State and Ext.P3 no-objection certificate granted by the 2nd respondent University. Once the 3rd respondent NCTE grants recognition, then such grant attains supremacy vis-a-vis the 1st respondent State as well as the 2nd respondent University, which is the affiliating body. The 3rd respondent NCTE has forwarded a copy of Ext.P4 order of recognition to the 2nd respondent University. In addition to this, the petitioners have already submitted Ext.P8 request dated 16.04.2018 before the 2nd respondent University, along with a copy of Ext.P4 order of recognition dated 03.03.2018, requesting the University to finalise the process of affiliation. Therefore, it is for the 2nd respondent University to conduct inspection in terms of its Statutes or Regulations, without offending the provisions of the NCTE Act and conditions of recognition, for the purpose of granting affiliation for conducting M.Ed. programme of two year duration in the petitioners College, with an intake of 50 students, from the academic session 2018-19. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions : (i) The 2nd respondent University shall conduct an inspection of the petitioners' College, in terms of the University Statutes or Regulations, without offending the provisions of the NCTE Act and the conditions of Ext.P4 recognition, for the purpose of granting provisional affiliation for conducting M.Ed. programme, with an intake of 50 students, from the academic session 2018-19, by deputing an inspection team, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. (ii) The inspection team shall submit its report to the 2nd respondent University, within a period of three days thereafter. programme, with an intake of 50 students, from the academic session 2018-19, by deputing an inspection team, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. (ii) The inspection team shall submit its report to the 2nd respondent University, within a period of three days thereafter. (iii) Based on the report of the inspection team, the 2nd respondent University shall take an appropriate decision on the request made by the petitioners for grant of affiliation for conducting M.Ed. programme in their College, based on Ext.P4 recognition granted by NCTE, with an intake of 50 students, from the academic session 2018-19, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one week thereafter; if found necessary, by the Vice Chancellor of the University exercising his powers under Section 10(13) of the Kerala University Act, 1974. (iv) The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioners forthwith.