ORDER : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the respondent no. 4 has been sought to be quashed by which the application made by the petitioner for its inspection for the purpose of fresh affiliation, has been rejected for the academic session 2015-2017. 2. It is the case of the petitioner as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that the petitioner college has made an application to respondent no. 6 for grant of recognition for conducting B.Ed. courses of one year duration with annual intake of 100 students, the respondent no. 6 has constituted the visiting team for the inspection of the petitioner college and a comprehensive inspection was conducted basis upon which the recognition to the petitioner college for the academic session 2006-2007 has been passed vide order dated 04.10.2006. The petitioner college has sought for affiliation from the respondent university, the university again conducted inspection of the petitioner college for the extension of its affiliation for every academic session from 2006-2007 and sent its proposal to the State Government which approved the affiliation so granted by the University and thereafter the State Government vide its letters issued, has extended the affiliation for academic session up to 2013-2014. The petitioner has furnished the eligibility requisite conditions and taking admission to the students but in the meanwhile, the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulation, 2014 was notified vide notification no. 346 dated 01.12.2014, wherein duration of B.Ed. course has been increased from one year to two years. The petitioner college consented to come under new Regulation, 2014 with annual intake of total 100 students, upon which, the respondent no. 6 vide its order dated 31.05.2015 has extended its recognition to the petitioner for conducting B.Ed. programme of two years duration from the academic session 2015-2016. NCTE has issued a letter dated 07.01.2015 addressed to the petitioner college directing it to take certain appropriate measures so as to adhere to the new regulation, the said letter has been appended with an explanatory note, wherein at clause 8 of the said note, which provides that if required, the institution shall write to the affiliating University for issuance of revised affiliation order in view of the enhanced duration/intake of the programme. According to the petitioner as per the clause 8 to the explanatory note, the position is very much clear that the petitioner college was under no obligation to make any application to the university for extension of its affiliation as the petitioner college has already been granted permanent affiliation by the university vide its letter dated 27.07.2013 but the respondent university rather vide its letter dated 23.02.2016 has rejected the application of the petitioner college seeking its inspection for extension of affiliation for academic session 2015-2017, on the ground that the application was not made within prescribed period, against which, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The petitioner has agitated the ground that as per the clause 8 appended to the explanatory note, there is no reason to make an application afresh for getting recognition and even that is not required. It is upon the apex body created for regulating the teachers training programme itself has fixed a date i.e. on 31.10.2015, by which the petitioner has to inform respondent no. 6 about the creation of additional facilities in terms of the new NCTE Regulation, 2014 which would be verified by the said recognizing authority by 20.02.2016 and as such, the required inspection was to be made by the NCTE before the cut-off date and the inquiry as was conducted ought to have been reported to the University for granting recognition/ affiliation afresh but having not done so, the petitioner institution cannot be made to suffer. Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has submitted by making reference of order dated 25.07.2016 passed in this writ petition, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed to take exams scheduled from 28.07.2016 of the students of the petitioner college of first year B.Ed. courses for the session 2015-17, pending adjudication on the issue relating to affiliation, the petitioner college has also been directed to comply with all the requirements relating to submission of forms, late fee, etc., and after complying with the said condition/direction, the students have been allowed to appear in the examination and they are now in the subsequent session but the fact remains that where there is no fault on the part of the petitioner’s institution why the students will have to suffer. 4. Ms. 4. Ms. Indrani Sen Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-University on the strength of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4-Registrar of Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh inter-alia stand has been taken, wherein there is no fault in the order dated 23.02.2016 by which, the application for affiliation of the college for 2015-17 has been rejected, it is because of the reason that as per the new Regulation, 2014 by the NCTE applicable for academic session 2015-16, the same would depend upon the fulfillment of condition and the condition has been stipulated in the regulation issued on 31.05.2015 has been annexed as annexure-11, wherein the condition has been stipulated to the effect: “6. Further, the recognition is subject to fulfillment of other requirements as may be prescribed by the other regulatory bodies like UGC, affiliating University/Body, the State Government etc. as applicable.” It has further been stated that prior to the grant of recognition on 31.05.2015, the petitioner was informed by NCTE under the new regulation vide letter dated 07.01.2015 as contained under annexure-12 to the writ petition appended to the explanatory note to the effect that the petitioner to get revised affiliation from affiliating University. Relevant part at paragraph-8 of the aforesaid explanatory note, wherein it has been stated “If required the institution shall write to the affiliating University for issuance of revised affiliation order in view of the enhanced duration/intake of the programme” and in that view of the matter the petitioner institution is required to get the affiliation from the affiliating University and it was not the obligation of the University to inform the petitioner college that it was required of it to apply for fresh affiliation for the academic session 2015-17. It has been stated by referring to the NCTE Act which contains a specific provision that without getting affiliation, no institution can take admission of students. Herein, the petitioner did not apply for affiliation in time as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as such, the affiliation was rejected by the University and hence the petitioner institution without getting affiliation, the petitioner could not have admitted the students. 5. Herein, the petitioner did not apply for affiliation in time as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as such, the affiliation was rejected by the University and hence the petitioner institution without getting affiliation, the petitioner could not have admitted the students. 5. The NCTE has put his appearance through his counsel namely Sunil Kumar, learned counsel, who although in spite of the initial direction passed by this Court has not filed any affidavit but however, the argument advanced on behalf of their counsels as would appear from the order dated 02.07.2019 and this Court after appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner vis-a-viz the University and considering the communication dated 02.03.2019 issued by the Regional Direction of the NCTE, whereby and whereunder, the inspection of the petitioner’s institution has been conducted and a report has been furnished but the learned counsel appearing for the NCTE could not be able to satisfy the Court on that date as to why the inspection has been conducted after such delay i.e., after lapse of about four years and that too, the said letter has not been communicated to the University rather only communicated to the petitioner and therefore, has directed the learned counsel representing the NCTE to file affidavit by annexing therein the inspection report, the extract of the same is being quoted herein-below:- “.......This Court upon such submission deem it fit and proper to direct the NCTE to file affidavit by annexing therein the inspection report as also stating “as to whether the said inspection report has been referred to the University if yes then when.” It is also to be explained that if the conditional recognition has been granted vide order dated 31.05.2015 then why such delay in conducting the inquiry, since as per the letter dated 02.03.2019 produced before this Court about four years has been taken by the NCTE. Affidavit to that effect shall be filed before the next date of listing to be sworn by the Regional Director.........” In pursuance to the aforesaid order, affidavit has been filed by the NCTE duly been sworn and affidavited by one Mr. Affidavit to that effect shall be filed before the next date of listing to be sworn by the Regional Director.........” In pursuance to the aforesaid order, affidavit has been filed by the NCTE duly been sworn and affidavited by one Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, holding the post of Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education has signed at the premises of Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Bhubaneswar, Odisha on 5th day of August, 2019 and when this Court has pointed out that the High Court of Jharkhand is not situated at Bhubaneswar, Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent-NCTE has submitted that due to typographical error, the same has occurred, be that as it may, the affidavit has been sworn and signed by the Regional Director and brought on record by way of affidavit duly been sworn by the advocate clerk at Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi who is working with the counsel of the said respondent, wherein, although the inspection report dated 02.03.2019 has been produced but no such reason for delay in conducting the inquiry/inspection has been given and with no reason or explanation or answer whether the said report has been communicated to the concerned competent authority of the University. It reflects from the inspection report dated 02.03.2019 that the petitioner institution is fulfilling all criteria as per the NCTE regulation, 2014, in compliance of the revised recognition order, the contents of the said inspection report is being reproduced herein-below:- “The Eastern Regional Committee in its 268th meeting held on 24th February, 2019 considered the reply of the institution on the aforesaid matter and decided as under: “On the basis of implementation of NCTE Regulations 2014, Revised Recognition Order issued on or before 31st May, 2015 from the academic session 2015-2016 to the institutions mentioned below subject to fulfillment of the conditions in respect of enhancement of additional built up area, additional infrastructure, additional fund, additional staff, maintain and update website and to comply the same to the ERC. After considering and examining the applications along with the documents submitted by the institutions mentioned below, agenda note, NCTE Act, NCTE Regulations 2014 including Norms and Standards, guidelines received from NCTE Hqrs. After considering and examining the applications along with the documents submitted by the institutions mentioned below, agenda note, NCTE Act, NCTE Regulations 2014 including Norms and Standards, guidelines received from NCTE Hqrs. from time to time, compliance reports/replies in response to SCN, the observation and decision taken by ERC on case to case basis are as under: (i) The institution has fulfilled all criteria as per NCTE Regulations, 2014 in compliance to revised recognition order. In view of the above, the Committee decided as under: A letter be issued to the institution in this regard.” 2. The above decision of ERC is hereby conveyed to the institution for information and record.” 6. This Court after going across the factual aspect and appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties as also looking to the nature of prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition, wherein the prayer has been sought for by questioning the impugned decision taken by the University on 23.02.2016 by rejecting the application filed for getting fresh affiliation since has been submitted after delay. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court that there is no requirement of getting fresh affiliation from the University in view of the fact that the petitioner institution has already been granted permanent affiliation way back in the year 2013 and as such, the new notification of the NCTE of the year 2014 is not applicable but no such prayer to that effect has been made rather the decision taken by the authority of the University has been assailed as has been taken on 23.02.2016. 8. It is the admitted position that the NCTE has conducted an inspection in pursuance to the notification of the year 2014 and in terms of the order dated 31.05.2015 as also the communication dated 07.01.2015 as contained under annexure-12. It is evident from the order dated 31.05.2015 by which the petitioner has accepted to follow the provision of regulation of the year 2014 for conducting the B.Ed. It is evident from the order dated 31.05.2015 by which the petitioner has accepted to follow the provision of regulation of the year 2014 for conducting the B.Ed. programme of two years of duration along with the other conditions stipulated therein and after the aforesaid order dated 31.05.2015, it is not available for the petitioner to say that the new regulation of NCTE, 2014 is not applicable rather after coming into effect the NCTE Regulation, 2014 in pursuance thereto, the order dated 31.05.2015 has been passed in connection with the petitioner’s institution which has been accepted by the petitioner, hence the same would be said to be applicable in its entirety and in continuation to that, the question of applicability of the communication issued by the Regional Director of the NCTE dated 07.01.2015 along with explanatory note, cannot be questioned by the petitioner on the ground that the institution since is affiliating by granting permanent affiliation, there is no requirement to get the fresh affiliation, if that be so, there would be no meaning of coming into effect the NCTE Regulation, 2014. So far as the condition stipulated about clause no. 8 is concerned, the same would be said to be applicable since by virtue of the order dated 31.05.2015, the condition stipulated in the explanatory note is required to be followed and in pursuance thereto only the inspection has been conducted by the NCTE, the report of the same has been submitted on 02.03.2019. 9. Now the question is about the legality and propriety of the impugned order, wherein the ground has been taken that no applications have been received on behalf of the petitioner institution or any report has been furnished by the NCTE by conducting the inspection of the institution in question. 9. Now the question is about the legality and propriety of the impugned order, wherein the ground has been taken that no applications have been received on behalf of the petitioner institution or any report has been furnished by the NCTE by conducting the inspection of the institution in question. The NCTE is admitting this fact and is also apparent by going across the affidavit filed on their behalf that the inspection has been conducted only on 02.03.2019 and that to, no copy of the said inspection report has been furnished to the concerned authority of the University and when this Court has directed to explain the reason of delay and why it has not been communicated to the University, although the counter affidavit has been filed by the NCTE but no such explanation has been furnished, the reason best known to the Regional Director of the NCTE, but this court needs to refer herein that since the Regional Director of the NCTE is holding the statutory post under the statutory provision of the NCTE Act, 1993 and as such, he is required to take decision within the framework of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court so that there may not be any delay in the session and uniformity be maintained and further this Court needs to deprecate the attitude of the Regional Director, NCTE and that even in spite of the judicial order passed by this Court about explaining the reason of delay in conducting the inspection, no such explanation has been furnished. The said aspect of the matter has been taken by this Court seriously. The question herein is also to look into the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust and Others vs. All India Council for Technical Education and Others, (2013) 3 SCC 385 wherein at paragraph nos.24 and 25 the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to inter-alia hold as hereunder:- “24. The consistent view of this Court has been that where both Parliament and the State Legislature have the power to legislate, the Central Act shall take precedence in the matters which are covered by such legislation and the State enactments shall pave way for such legislations to the extent they are in conflict or repugnant. The consistent view of this Court has been that where both Parliament and the State Legislature have the power to legislate, the Central Act shall take precedence in the matters which are covered by such legislation and the State enactments shall pave way for such legislations to the extent they are in conflict or repugnant. As per the established canons of law, primacy of the Central Act is indisputable which necessarily implies primacy of AICTE in the field of technical education. Statutes like the present one as well as the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, etc. fall within the ambit of this canon of law. AICTE is the authority constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining operational standards and judging the infrastructure and facilities available for imparting professional education. It shall take precedence over the opinion of the State as well as that of the University. The department concerned of the State and the affiliating university have a role to play, but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies in conflict with the Central statute or the standards laid down by the Central body. The State can frame its policies, but such policy again has to be in conformity with the direction issued by the Central body. Though there is no such apparent conflict in the present case, yet it needs to be clarified that grant of approval by the State and affiliation by the University for increased intake of seats or commencement of new college should not be repugnant to the conditions of approval/recommendation granted by AICTE. These authorities have to work in tandem as all of them have the common object to ensure maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and proper infrastructure for betterment of technical educational system. 25. It is also a settled principle that the regulations framed by the Central authorities such as AICTE have the force of law and are binding on all concerned. Once approval is granted or declined by such expert body, the courts would normally not substitute their view in this regard. Such expert views would normally be accepted by the court unless the powers vested in such expert body are exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or in a manner impermissible under the Regulations and the AICTE Act. Once approval is granted or declined by such expert body, the courts would normally not substitute their view in this regard. Such expert views would normally be accepted by the court unless the powers vested in such expert body are exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or in a manner impermissible under the Regulations and the AICTE Act. In All India Council for Technical Education vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan, this Court, while stating the principles that the courts may not substitute their opinion in place of the opinion of the Council, held as under: (SCC pp. 732-33 and 736, paras 17-18 and 32) “17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and the role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in. In J.P. Kulshrestha vs. Allahabad University this Court observed: (SCC pp. 424-426, paras 11-17) “11.......Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread......... *** *** *** 17........While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.” (Emphasis supplied) 18. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, this Court reiterated: (SCC pp. 56-57, para 29) “29......the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them.” *** *** *** 32. This is a classic case where an educational course has been created and continued merely by the fiat of the court, without any prior statutory or academic evaluation or assessment or acceptance. Granting approval for a new course or programme requires examination of various academic/technical facets which can only be done by an expert body like AICTE. This function cannot obviously be taken over or discharged by courts. In this case, for example, by a mandamus of the court, a bridge course was permitted for four-year advance diploma-holders who had passed the entry-level examination of 10+2 with PCM subjects. This function cannot obviously be taken over or discharged by courts. In this case, for example, by a mandamus of the court, a bridge course was permitted for four-year advance diploma-holders who had passed the entry-level examination of 10+2 with PCM subjects. Thereafter, by another mandamus in another case, what was a one-time measure was extended for several years and was also extended to post diploma-holders. Again by another mandamus, it was extended to those who had passed only 10+1 examination instead of the required minimum of 10+2 examination. Each direction was obviously intended to give relief to students who wanted to better their career prospects, purely as an ad hoc measure. But together they lead to an unintended dilution of educational standards, adversely affecting the standards and quality of engineering degree courses. Courts should guard against such forays in the field of education.” Further, the judgment has been rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2013) 2 SCC 617 , wherein at paragraph 79, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to lay down which reads as hereunder:- “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 re-agitated at the time of grant of affiliation. 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 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 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.” The other judgment has been rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Asha vs. PT. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and Others, (2012) 7 SCC 389 wherein, it has been laid down that if there is no laches on the part of the students they cannot be victimized. Likewise, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (supra) has taken note of this aspect of the matter about the delay if committed on the part of other stake holders. 10. Likewise, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (supra) has taken note of this aspect of the matter about the delay if committed on the part of other stake holders. 10. This Court after appreciating the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove and after going across the factual aspect involved in this case, wherefrom it is the admitted fact that the NCTE has failed to discharge its duty which is in utter defiance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred since being a stake holder, the NCTE ought to have conducted inspection and ought to have submitted the inspection report before the concerned authority of the University but having no done so, and only on 02.03.2019, report has been communicated to the petitioner but not communicated it to the concerned University and therefore, this Court is of the view that admittedly, the laches has been committed on the part of the NCTE and even as on date, the laches is continuing, since no such inspection report has been communicated to the concerned University and as such for the laches on the part of the NCTE, the institution where the students are studying cannot be made to suffer. Simultaneously, it also needs to refer that the decision taken by the University as impugned does not suffer from infirmity, since admittedly the University has not been communicated with any of the communication along with the inspection report but since now the inspection report has been brought on record, therefore, the Regional Director, NCTE is directed to communicate the same to the concerned authority of the University forthwith in turn thereof, the competent authority of the University is directed to take decision upon the claim of the petitioner within the period of four weeks’ from the date of receipt of such inspection report. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 12. In consequence thereof, I.A. No. 3041 of 2019 also stands disposed of.