JUDGMENT : S.Manikumar, J. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 9.9.2020 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.18253 of 2020, instant writ appeal is filed. 2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that, the petitioner is an educational institution conducting B.Ed course on the strength of the recognition granted by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). The course of B.Ed was converted to a two year course by the NCTE with effect from the academic year of 2015-2016 onwards. The NCTE issued an order granting recognition for the Course of two years duration with an annual intake of 100 students with two basic units. Though two units were permitted by the respondent, the petitioner was unable to fill in students even for one single unit and a request was preferred to the respondent to reduce the intake to one unit. The respondent issued an order after two years accepting the request and reducing the intake from two units to one unit w.e.f 2017-2018. As there was delay on the part of the respondent to consider the request for reduction of units, the petitioner admitted students to all the seats in both the units during the year 2017-2018. The same was also intimated to the respondent. Now, the number of students seeking admission to the Course has increased tremendously. To provide opportunities to these students, the College made a request before the respondent to reinstate the previous order sanctioning two units of 50 students each. The affiliating Universities have started inviting application for admission to the Course. Until the respondent takes step immediately to reinstate the previous order granting permission for two units, the students seeking admission to the Course will be denied an opportunity to submit their application to join the Course. Hence, W.P.(C) No.18253 of 2020 was filed seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to reinstate the previous order granting recognition for the Course of two years duration with an annual intake of 100 students in two basic units of 50 students each; ii. Issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the College is entitled to allot students as per Exhibit P2 order.” 3. Issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the College is entitled to allot students as per Exhibit P2 order.” 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing thus: “16. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the petitioner institution cannot seek a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to reinstate the annual intake in Ext.P2 order dated 10.06.2015 by granting recognition to the institution to conduct B.Ed Course of two years duration with an annual intake of 100 students in two basic units of 50 students each, without making an application seeking permission for additional intake in B.Ed. Course, in the manner specified in Regulation 5, within the time limit prescribed in the said Regulation, after complying with the norms and procedures under the Regulations, 2014. Since no mandamus can be issued to direct the NCTE to do something which is contrary to the Regulations, 2014, the respondent cannot be directed to consider the request made by the petitioner institution in Ext.P7 representation dated 18.07.2020 to reinstate the annual intake for B.Ed. Course in Ext.P2 order, i.e., annual intake of 100 students, with two basic units of 50 students each.” 4. In this writ appeal, the appellant has, inter alia, raised the following grounds: “A. It was urged before the learned single Judge that there was no legal embargo for the respondent to reinstate the previous order granting recognition for 2 units based on Exhibit P7 request, as the demand for the Course has increased. The respondent vide Exhibit P1 granted recognition to conduct the Course of one year duration from the academic session 20062007 with an annual intake of 100 students. The course of B.Ed was converted to a two year course by the NCTE with effect from the academic year of 2015-16 onwards. Consequently, an order was issued by the respondent as evident from Exhibit P2 granting recognition for the Course of two years duration with an annual intake of 100 students with two basic units of 50 students each from the academic session 2015-16 onwards. Learned single Judge failed to recognise the fact that in both these orders issued in 2006 and 2015, the number of intake was 100. Thus, there was no additional intake granted in the year 2015. Learned single Judge failed to recognise the fact that in both these orders issued in 2006 and 2015, the number of intake was 100. Thus, there was no additional intake granted in the year 2015. learned single Judge went on to hold that as per Exhibit P2, an additional intake was granted for which, the appellant had to submit proof of having provided additional facilities before 31.10.2015. This observation is against the facts and erroneously made while rendering the judgment. B. Learned single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the number of units were reduced to one only based on the request made by the appellant in the year 2015. Nevertheless, there was a delay of 2 years on the part of the respondent in accepting the request and reducing the number of units. By 2017, number of students seeking admission to the Course has increased tremendously. The appellant admitted students to all the seats in both the units during the year 2017-18. The same was also intimated to the respondent vide communication dated 24.11.2017. Thus, the learned single Judge ought to have directed the respondent to reinstate the previous order considering the fact that the appellant college was already granted recognition for conducting the course by admitting 100 students. This aspect has been completely ignored and overlooked by the learned single Judge while rendering the judgment. C. Learned single Judge has totally ignored the fact that Exhibit P7 is only a request to reinstate the previous order granting recognition for the Course of two year duration of 50 students each and that it is not a request for additional intake as urged by the respondent. The finding of the learned single Judge, based on the submission of the respondent that an application for additional intake will have to be submitted, in the manner as specified in Regulation 5, is flawed. Further, the respondent itself submitted before the learned single Judge that for this academic year, the respondent has not provided the facility for submitting online applications. This has been ignored by the learned single Judge while holding that mandamus cannot be issued to the respondent to do something, which is contrary to the Regulations, 2014. Further, the respondent itself submitted before the learned single Judge that for this academic year, the respondent has not provided the facility for submitting online applications. This has been ignored by the learned single Judge while holding that mandamus cannot be issued to the respondent to do something, which is contrary to the Regulations, 2014. If the finding of the learned single Judge is to the effect that Exhibit P7 request ought to have been submitted through online application, then the appellant should have been given an opportunity to do so, rather than denying the procedure to submit application online, as provided under the Statute. Per contra, the learned single Judge had relied on several judgments, which has no relevance to the instant case, to hold that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued without complying with the norms and procedure under the regulations. Though this was pointed out during hearing, the learned single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent has failed to comply with the statutory duty imposed on them to permit online submission of the applications. D. Learned single Judge has ignored the fact that the demand for the Course has increased. To provide opportunities to the students, the College made a request before the respondent vide Exhibit P7 to reinstate the previous order sanctioning two units of 50 students each. This representation has to be considered without any delay as done earlier, otherwise the future of students, who want to get admission during this academic year will be put at stake. E. It was pointed out while arguing that the intake has been reduced to one unit only based on the request of the appellant. There is no deficiency on part of the appellant. The appellant has provided adequate infrastructure and appointed sufficient faculty. Thus, the respondent has to act without any further delay in reinstating the order permitting to run 2 units. Though this issue was brought before the learned single Judge, the same was not considered while rendering the impugned judgment. Instead, the learned single Judge has gone to hold that as per Exhibit P2 order granting recognition, applicant for additional intake will have to submit the required documents in the specified proforma available on the website of the respondent. Learned single Judge has overlooked the fact that by Exhibit P2, appellant was already sanctioned two units of 50 students each. Instead, the learned single Judge has gone to hold that as per Exhibit P2 order granting recognition, applicant for additional intake will have to submit the required documents in the specified proforma available on the website of the respondent. Learned single Judge has overlooked the fact that by Exhibit P2, appellant was already sanctioned two units of 50 students each. Thus, the request of the appellant was not for additional intake, as wrongly observed by the learned single Judge. They only want to reinstate the order which was already sanctioned to the appellant. F. The learned single Judge totally ignored the fact that even in the year 2020, the intake permitted by NCTE in their website is shown as 100 students for the appellant. This clearly depicts that there is no deficiency or legal prohibition in permitting the appellant to continue with 2 units as granted earlier vide Exhibit P2. The appellant has provided all the necessary faculty and facilities for conducting the B.Ed course. If the respondent does not issue orders at the earliest, the College will lose another year of allotment, thereby adversely affecting system of running the educational institution. Though this issue was brought before the learned single Judge, the same was not considered while rendering the impugned judgment. 5. On the above grounds, Mr. George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, made submissions seeking for reversal of the impugned judgment. 6. Per contra, Dr. Abraham P. Meachinkara, learned standing counsel for the National Council for Teacher Education, submitted that for the academic year 2020-2021, receipt of application through online mode was discontinued. Nevertheless, as per Regulation 5, applications have to be submitted between 1st March and 31st May of the preceding year from the academic session for which additional unit was sought for. The representation made on 18.07.2020, is not in accordance with the regulation 5 and, therefore, the learned single Judge has rightly held that when the appellant has no right to enforce, mandamus cannot be issued. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed to dismiss the writ appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed to dismiss the writ appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Exhibit-P3 request made by the petitioner college before the Regional Director, NCTE, Bangalore, reads thus: “Date 26-10-2015 To THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NCTE, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE BANGALORE Sub: Request letter to reinstate as 'one basic unit' in B. Ed Ref: Order received from NCTE vide No.F.SRO/APSO0807/B.Ed/KL/2015-16/67068 DATED 10/06/2015. Sir, NCTE has directed our College to furnish all required additional facilities as we sought for two basic units in B.Ed and to inform Regional committee by 31st October, 2015 on the letter vide No. F.SRO/APSO0807/B.Ed/KL/2015-16/67068 dated 10/06/2015. We do seek your kind attention that most of the B.Ed colleges in Kerala are striving for the survival because of the falling number of students year to year. We are also not an exception to the situation. We are admitted only 20 students in B.Ed for the academic year 2015-16. In this context we do inform you that our college has decided to avert the plan to start two units and to run with single unit only. Being we do not have the plan for the additional unit, we kindly request you to take necessary measures to run with single unit only. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, MANAGER, ORIENTAL COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION POONATH-P.O, CALICUT DISTRICT.” 9. Exhibit-P4 communication sent by the appellant college to the respondent reads thus: “Date 08-08-2016 To The Regional Director SRC – NCTE Bangalore. Ref : Letter to NCTE dated 26-10-2015 Sub : Application for seeking order to change of intake from two units to one unit. Sir, We are sad to inform you that the demand for BEd course is vastly decreasing throughout Kerala. We are also not an exemption to this scenario. Our intake is only 30 in the 2016 -18 Academic year, while it was just 19 in 2015-17 batch. In this context I do kindly inform you that we need only one unit instead of two. I have already sent a letter in this regard as mentioned above. Please do request you to take necessary action and pass an order to us limiting our intake as one unit. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Calicut, Kerala. Sd/- MANAGER ORIENTAL COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION POONATH-P.O, NADUVANNUR CALICUT-673614” 10. I have already sent a letter in this regard as mentioned above. Please do request you to take necessary action and pass an order to us limiting our intake as one unit. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Calicut, Kerala. Sd/- MANAGER ORIENTAL COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION POONATH-P.O, NADUVANNUR CALICUT-673614” 10. Exhibit-P5 order issued by the respondent to the Principal of the petitioner college reads thus: “TO BE PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE OF INDIA PART III SECTION 4 ORDER WHEREAS, recognition was granted to Oriental College of Teacher Education, Poonath Post, Naduvanoor (via), Calicut Dt., Pin673614, Kerala for B.Ed course with an annual intake of 100 students, vide this office order No.F.LD/B.Ed/SRO/NCTE/2006-2007/8628 dated 23.10.2006. AND WHEREAS, on the basis of the affidavit submitted by them on 20.01.2015, a revised Recognition Order was issued vide order No.F.SRO/APSO0807/B.Ed/KL/2015-16/67068 dated 10.06.2015. AND WHEREAS, the institution submitted written representation on 29.10.2015 and 08.08.2016 requesting therein for reduction of strength from 2 units to 1 unit in its B.Ed course. AND WHEREAS, the request was placed before SRC in its 343rd meeting held on 1st to 2nd August, 2017 and the Committee considered the matter and decided as under:- 1. The request for reduction from 2 units to 1 unit is accepted subject to the following conditions: The request for reduction of intake strength from 2 units to 1 unit is accepted subject to the following conditions: (i) The reduction will be w.e.f. 2017-18. The students admitted into the 2 units in 2016-17 will however be entitled to continue with and complete their 2nd year course in 2017-2018. (ii) Admissions in 2017-18 will be limited to one unit of 50. The affiliating Universities will please ensure that this is strictly observed. (iii) Notwithstanding the restriction of admission in the first year course to 50, there will be no reduction in the faculty strength of 1+15, as prescribed in the 2014 Regulations because of the continuing workload in the 2nd year course. The affiliating Universities will please ensure that this is strictly observed. (iv) The faculty strength can be reduced to 1+9 w.e.f. 2018-19. This arrangement will come into force with immediate effect because of the urgency of admissions relating to proximity of counseling. But, it will be subject to subsequent production of the under listed documents by the institutions concerned. (i) Resolution of the sponsoring society. (ii) NOC of the Affiliating University. (iv) The faculty strength can be reduced to 1+9 w.e.f. 2018-19. This arrangement will come into force with immediate effect because of the urgency of admissions relating to proximity of counseling. But, it will be subject to subsequent production of the under listed documents by the institutions concerned. (i) Resolution of the sponsoring society. (ii) NOC of the Affiliating University. (iii) No Dues Certificate relating to the Teaching faculty. (iv) No Dues Certificate relating to the non-Teaching Faculty. 2. These cases will be processed for RPRO purposes separately, subsequently. 3. Issue order for the reduction of strength accordingly and resubmit for RPRO processing. NOW THEREFORE, the request of the institution for reduction of intake from 2 units to 1 unit in the B.Ed course is permitted herewith subject to the conditions indicated in the above para and fulfillment of the conditions mentioned vide order NO.F.SRO/ APSO0807/B.Ed/KL/2015-16/67068 dated 10.06.2015. Also order that a copy of this order be published in the official Gazette. By Order, Sd/- (P. Angelin Golda) Regional Director (I/c) The Manager Government of India Press Department of Publications (Gazette Section) Civil Lines, New Delhi —110 054. To, The Principal, Oriental College of Teacher Education, Poonath Post, Nadu Vanoor (via), Calicut District-673614, Kerala” 11. Exhibit-P7 request of the petitioner before the Regional Director, NCTE, Bangalore reads thus: “From The Manager To The Regional Director SRC – NCTE G-7 Sector 10 Dwaraka New Delhi -110075 Sir Sub: Reinstatement of the second unit -Request Regarding. Ref: 1.F.SRO/APSO0807/B.Ed/2015-16/67068/dated 10.06.2015. 2. F.No. SRO / NCTE / APSO 0807 / B.Ed/ KL / 2017 -18 / 95279/dated 11.10.2017. The Oriental College of Teacher Education had been allotted two units of the B. Ed Course vide the order cited above as reference No.1. But, as it was the beginning of the two-year batch of the course, there was some widely felt reluctance among the student community to join the B. Ed course. As a result, the number of students seeking admission to the B. Ed college was very meager. Frankly speaking, it was difficult at that time to get even 50 students for a unit. However, as the management trust of the college had been in the field of education for several years with commitment and dedication, and its focus being on break even and not on profit, we continued to run the college. Frankly speaking, it was difficult at that time to get even 50 students for a unit. However, as the management trust of the college had been in the field of education for several years with commitment and dedication, and its focus being on break even and not on profit, we continued to run the college. We maintained only one unit for the first two years, though two units were allotted by your good self. At this critical juncture, we submitted a request before your good self for reducing the intake from two units to one unit. Within two years, we could overcome the crisis and challenges. More number of students thronged to our college for admission. In 2017-18 we got sufficient number of students for admission to two units and commenced the class in June. But, the reply to our letter submitted a year ago for reducing the intake to one unit came in October, 2017 as order cited above as reference No.2. As we had stalled the class for the 2017-18 batch four months before getting this order. We submitted a request, vide the letter dated 24.11.2017, seeking your permission to extend the beginning effect of the order to the academic year 2018 -19. We restricted the admission as to one unit only from the academic year 2018-19, though hundreds of students were waiting outside for admission. Now, the number of students seeking admission to the B. Ed course is on increase. It is better if we can arrange opportunities for them to do the course. If your good self can reinstate the previous order sanctioning two units, it will be highly beneficial for the student community. So we humbly request you to issue necessary orders reinstating the already allotted two units, so that we can admit 100 students from the academic year 2020-21 onwards. Expecting a favourable order 18.07.2020 Faithfully yours, Sd/- Manager Oriental College of Teacher Education” 12. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (73 of 1993), and in supersession of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009, the National Council for Teacher Education has made the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014. 13. Regulation 3 speaks about applicability and it reads thus: “3. 13. Regulation 3 speaks about applicability and it reads thus: “3. Applicability.-These regulations shall be applicable to all matters relating to teacher education programmes for preparing norms and standards and procedures for recognition of institutions, commencement of new programmes and addition to sanctioned intake in the existing programmes including the following, namely: - (a) recognition for commencement of new teacher education programmes which shall be offered in composite institutions; (b) permission for introduction of new programmes in existing teacher education institutions duly recognized by the Council; (c) permission for additional intake in the existing teacher education programmes duly recognised by the Council; (d) permission for shifting or relocating of premises of existing teacher education institutions; (e) permission for closure or discontinuation of recognised teacher education programmes, or institutions as the case may be: Provided that for teacher education programmes offered through open and distance learning, the respective norms and standards for each such learning programme shall be applicable.” 14. Regulation 4 categorises the institutions, eligible for consideration of their application and it reads thus: “4. Eligibility.-The following categories of institutions are eligible for consideration of their applications under these regulations, namely: - (a) institutions established by or under the authority of the Central or State Government or Union territory administration; (b) institutions financed by the Central or State Government or Union territory administration; (c) all universities, including institutions deemed to be universities, so recognised or declared as such, under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956); (d) self financed educational institutions established and operated by 'not for profit' societies and trusts registered under the appropriate laws or a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013).” 15. Regulation 5 states about the manner in which an application has to be made and also the time limit for submission of the application. The regulation reads thus: “5. Regulation 5 states about the manner in which an application has to be made and also the time limit for submission of the application. The regulation reads thus: “5. Manner of making application and time limit.-(1) An institution eligible under regulation 4, desirous of running a teacher education programme may apply to the concerned Regional Committee for recognition in the prescribed application form along with processing fee and requisite documents: Provided that an institution may make simultaneous applications for shifting of premises or additional intake, or additional teacher education programmes as the case may be: Provided further that an existing institution may make an application for closure or discontinuation of one or several teacher education programmes recognised by the Council. (2) The application form may be downloaded from the website of the Council, namely, www.ncte-india.org and different forms may be downloaded for programmes offered through open and distance learning. (3) The application shall be submitted online electronically along with the processing fee and scanned copies of required documents such as no objection certificate issued by the concerned affiliating body. While submitting the application, it has to be ensured that the application is duly signed by the applicant on every page, including digital signature at appropriate place at the end of the application. (4) While submitting the application online a copy of the registered land document issued by the competent authority, indicating that the society or institution applying for the programme possesses land on the date of application, shall be attached along with the application. (5) Duly completed application in all respects may be submitted to the Regional Committee concerned between 1st March to 31st May of the preceding year from the academic session for which recognition is sought: Provided that the aforesaid period shall not be applicable for submission of application to innovative programmes of teacher education. (6) All applications received online from 1st March to 31st May of the year shall be processed for the next academic session and final decision, either recognition granted or refused, shall be communicated to the applicant on or before the 3rd day of March of the succeeding year.” 16. Regulation 6 speaks about the processing fees and it reads thus: “6. Regulation 6 speaks about the processing fees and it reads thus: “6. Processing Fees.-The processing fee as prescribed under rule 9 of the National Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997 as amended from time to time, shall be paid by the applicant for processing of an application for grant of recognition to an institution to conduct a teacher education programme or addition to programme or intake in the existing programme, online to the designated banks as may be notified by the Council.” 17. Regulation 7 speaks about the process involved in considering the applications and it reads thus: “7. Processing of applications.-(1) In case an application is not complete, or requisite documents are not attached with the application, the application shall be treated : incomplete and rejected, and application fees paid shall be forfeited. (2) The application shall be summarily rejected under one or more of the following circumstance - (a) failure to furnish the application fee, as prescribed under rule 9 of the National Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997 on or before the date of submission of online application; (b) failure to submit print out of the applications made online along with the land documents as required under sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 5 within fifteen days of the submission of the online application. (3) Furnishing any false information or concealment of facts in the application, which may have bearing on the decision making process or the decision pertaining to grant of recognition, shall result in refusal of recognition of the institution besides other legal action against its management. The order of refusal of recognition shall be passed after giving reasonable opportunity through a show cause notice to the institution. (4) A written communication along with a copy of the application form submitted by the institution shall be sent by the office of Regional Committee to the State Government or the 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. (5) 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 Union territory, as the case may be. (5) 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 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. (6) If the recommendation of the State Government is not received within the aforesaid period, 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 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. (7) 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: Provided that the Regional Committee shall organise such inspections strictly in chronological order of the receipt of application for the cases to be approved by it: Provided further that the members of the visiting team for inspection shall be decided by the Regional Committee out of the panel of experts approved by the Council and in accordance with the visiting team policy of the Council. (8) At the time of the 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 their reports along with the video recordings on the same day: Provided that the videography should clearly establish the outer view of the building, its surroundings, access road and important infrastructure including classrooms, labs, resource rooms, multi-purpose hall, library and others. The visiting team shall ensure that the videography is done in a continuous manner, the final unedited copy of the videography is handed over to them immediately after its recording and its conversion to a CD should be done in the presence of visiting team members: Provided further that at the time of inspection for new courses or enhancement of intake of the existing course, the visiting team shall verify the facilities for existing recognized teacher education courses and ascertain the fulfillment and maintenance of regulations and norms and standards for the existing courses as well. (9) 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. (9) 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. (10) The Regional Committee shall decide grant of recognition or permission to an institution only after satisfying itself that the institution fulfills 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 programmes. (11) In the matter of grant of recognition, the Regional Committees 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) The Regional Director, who is the convener of the Regional Committee, while putting up the proposals to the Regional Committee, shall ensure that the correct provisions in the Act, rules or regulations including norms and standards for various teacher education programmes are brought to the notice of the Regional Committee so as to enable the Committee to take appropriate decisions. (13) The institution concerned shall be informed, through a letter of intent, regarding the decision for grant of recognition or permission subject to appointment of qualified faculty members before the commencement of the academic session. The letter of intent issued under this clause shall not be notified in the Gazette but would be sent to the institution and the affiliating body with the request that the process of appointment of qualified staff as per policy of State Government or University Grants Commission or University may be initiated and the institution be provided all assistance to ensure that the staff or faculty is appointed as per the norms of the Council within two months. The institution shall submit the list of the faculty, as approved by the affiliating body, to the Regional Committee. The institution shall submit the list of the faculty, as approved by the affiliating body, to the Regional Committee. (14)(i) All the applicant institutions shall launch their own website with hyperlink to the Council and corresponding Regional Office websites soon after the receipt of the letter of intent from the Regional Committee, covering, inter alia, the details of the institution, its location, name of the programme applied for with intake; availability of physical infrastructure, such as land, building, office, classrooms, and other facilities or amenities; instructional facilities, such as laboratory and library and the particulars of their proposed teaching faculty and nonteaching staff with photographs, for information of all concerned. The information with regard to the following shall also be made available on the website, namely:- (a) sanctioned programmes along with annual intake in the institution; (b) name of faculty and staff in full as mentioned in school certificate along with their qualifications, scale of pay and photograph; (c) name of faculty members who left or joined during the last quarter; (d) names of students admitted during the current session along with qualification, percentage of marks in the qualifying examination and in the entrance test, if any, date of admission and such other information; (e) fee charged from students; (f) available infrastructural facilities; (g) facilities added during the last quarter; (h) number of books in the library, refereed journals subscribed to, and additions, if any, in the last quarter. (ii) The institution shall be free to post additional relevant information, if it so desires. (iii) Any false or incomplete information on its website shall render the institution liable for withdrawal of recognition. (15) The institution concerned, after appointing the requisite faculty or staff as per the provisions of norms and standards of respective programmes, and after fulfilling the conditions under regulation 8, shall formally inform about such appointments to the Regional Committee concerned. (16) The letter granting approval for the selection or appointment of faculty shall also be provided by the institution to the Regional Committee with the document establishing that the Fixed Deposit Receipts of Endowment Fund and Reserve Fund have been converted into a joint account and after receipt of the said details, the Regional Committee concerned shall issue a formal order of recognition which shall be notified as provided under the Act. (17) In cases, where the Regional Committee, after consideration of the report of the visiting team and other facts on record, is of the opinion that the institution does not fulfill the requirements for starting or conducting the course or for enhancement of intake, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the institution pass an order refusing to allow any further opportunity for removal of deficiencies or inspection for reasons to be recorded in writing:provided that against the order passed by the Regional Committee, an appeal to the Council may be preferred as provided under section 18 of the Act. (18) The reports of inspection of the institutions along with the names of the visiting team experts shall be made available on the official website of the Regional Committee concerned after the same have been considered by the Regional Committee. (19) The Regional Committee shall process the application for closure in the manner prescribed for the processing of applications for new programmes or additional programmes or additional intake.” 18. Before adverting to the rival submissions, let us consider a few decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the enforceability of the regulations issued under various statutes. (i) In Sukhdev Singh and Others v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Another [ (1975) 1 SCC 421 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: “30............In this view a regulation is not an agreement or contract but a law binding the corporation, its officers, servants and the members of the public who come within the sphere of its operations. The doctrine of ultra vires as applied to statutes, rules and orders should equally apply to the regulations and any other subordinate legislation. The regulations made under power conferred by the statute are subordinate legislation and have the force and effect, it validly made, as the Act passed by the competent Legislature. 33. There is no substantial difference between a rule and a regulation inasmuch as both are subordinate legislation under powers conferred by the statute. A regulation framed under a statute applies uniform treatment to every one or to all members of some group or class. The Oil and Natural Gas Commission, the Life Insurance Corporation and Industrial Finance Corporation are all required by the statute to frame regulations inter alia for the purpose of the duties and conduct and conditions of service of officers and other employees. The Oil and Natural Gas Commission, the Life Insurance Corporation and Industrial Finance Corporation are all required by the statute to frame regulations inter alia for the purpose of the duties and conduct and conditions of service of officers and other employees. These regulations impose obligation on the statutory authorities. The statutory authorities cannot deviate from the conditions of service. Any deviation will be enforced by legal sanction of declaration by courts to invalidate actions in violation of rules and regulations. The existence of rules and regulations under statute is to ensure regular conduct with a distinctive attitude to that conduct as a standard. The statutory regulations in the cases under consideration give the employees a statutory status and impose restriction on the employer and the employee with no option to vary the conditions. An ordinary individual in a case of master and servant contractual relationship enforces breach of contractual terms. The remedy in such contractual relationship of master and servant is damages because personal service is not capable of enforcement. In cases of statutory bodies, there is no personal element whatsoever because of the impersonal character of statutory bodies. In the case of statutory bodies it has been said that the element of public employment or service. and the support of statute require observance of rules and regulations.........” 67. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that rules and regulations framed by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Life Insurance Corporation and the Industrial Finance Corporation have the force of law. The employees of these statutory bodies have a statutory status and they are entitled to declaration of being in employment when their dismissal or removal is in contravention of statutory provisions. By way of abundant caution we state that these employees are not servants of the Union or the State. These statutory bodies are "authorities" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.” (ii) In Bharathidasan University and Another v. All-India Council for Technical Education and Others [ (2001) 8 SCC 676 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “13. These statutory bodies are "authorities" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.” (ii) In Bharathidasan University and Another v. All-India Council for Technical Education and Others [ (2001) 8 SCC 676 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “13. AICTE cannot, in our view, make any Regulation in exercise of its powers under Section 23 of the Act, notwithstanding Sub-section (1), which though no doubt enables such Regulations being made generally to carry out the purposes of the Act, when such power is circumscribed by the specific limitation engrafted therein to ensure them to be "not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the rules..." So far as the question of granting approval, leave alone prior or post, Section 10(1)(k) specifically confines the limits of such power of AICTE only to be exercised vis-a-vis technical institutions, as defined in the Act and not generally. When the language is specific, unambiguous and positive, the same cannot be overlooked to give an expansive meaning under the pretext of a purposive construction to perpetuate an ideological object and aim which also, having regard to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the AICTE Act are not warranted or justified. Therefore, the Regulations insofar as it compels the universities to seek for and obtain prior approval and not to start any law department or course or programme in technical education (Regulation 4) and empower itself to withdraw such approval, in a given case of contravention of the Regulations (Regulation 12) are directly opposed to and inconsistent with the provisions of Section 10(1)(k) of the Act and consequently void and unenforceable. 14. The fact that the Regulations may have the force of law or when made have to be laid down before the legislature concerned do not confer any more sanctity or immunity as though they are statutory provisions themselves. 14. The fact that the Regulations may have the force of law or when made have to be laid down before the legislature concerned do not confer any more sanctity or immunity as though they are statutory provisions themselves. Consequently, when the power to make Regulations are confined to certain limits and made to flow in a well defined canal within stipulated banks, those actually made or shown and found to be not made within its confines but outside them, the Courts are bound to ignore them when the question of their enforcement arise and the mere fact that there was no specific relief sought for to strike down or declare them ultra vires, particularly when the party in sufferance is a Respondent to the lis or proceedings cannot confer any further sanctity or authority and validity which it is shown and found to obviously and patently lack. It would, therefore, be a myth to state that Regulations made under Section 23 of the Act have "Constitutional" and legal status, even unmindful of the fact that anyone or more of them are found to be not consistent with specific provisions of the Act itself. Thus, the Regulations in question, which the AICTE could not have made so as to bind universities/UGC within the confines of the powers conferred upon it, cannot be enforced against or bind an University in the matter of any necessity to seek prior approval to commence a new department or course and programme in technical education in any university or any of its departments and constituent institutions.” (iii) In Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Another v. Union of India and Others [ (2005) 2 SCC 65 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the regulations framed under clause (fa) of Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 r/w. Section 33 for establishment of medical college, admission of students and time schedule are binding. At paragraphs 35.4, 35.14 and 35.15, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: “35. Having regard to the aforesaid, we issue the following directions: xxx xxx xxx (4) 4. It shall be the responsibility of all concerned including Chief Secretaries of each State/Union Territories and/or Health Secretaries to ensure compliance of the directions of this Court and requisite time schedule as laid down in the Regulations and non-compliance would make them liable for requisite penal consequences. xxx xxx xxx 14. It shall be the responsibility of all concerned including Chief Secretaries of each State/Union Territories and/or Health Secretaries to ensure compliance of the directions of this Court and requisite time schedule as laid down in the Regulations and non-compliance would make them liable for requisite penal consequences. xxx xxx xxx 14. Time schedule for establishment of new college or to increase intake in existing college, shall be adhered to strictly by all concerned. 15. Time schedule provided in Regulations shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned failing which defaulting party would be liable to be personally proceeded with.” (iv) In National Council For Teacher Education and Another v. Committee of Management and Others [ (2006) 4 SCC 65 ], on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraphs 16 to 18 held thus: “16. Regulations could be framed by the appellant under Sub-section (1) of Section 32 read with Section 14 thereof. Section 14, as noticed hereinbefore, itself provides that the applications are required to be filed in such form and in such a manner as was determined by the Regulations. The Regulations could have thus also been framed in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. We have, however, noticed hereinbefore that Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 32 specifically refers to Section 14 of the Act for the purpose of laying down the form and manner in which the applications for recognition are required to be submitted. The High Court was, therefore, entirely wrong in arriving at the conclusion that the Council had no such power. The Regulations, having been validly framed, indisputably, were required to be complied with. The Council has a statutory duty to perform. It is an autonomous body. Its jurisdiction extend to the entire territory of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and in that view of the matter, it is indisputably required to process a large number of applications received by it from various institutions situate throughout the country. The Council has a statutory duty to perform. It is an autonomous body. Its jurisdiction extend to the entire territory of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and in that view of the matter, it is indisputably required to process a large number of applications received by it from various institutions situate throughout the country. Six month's time, in view of the statutory scheme, is necessary for processing the papers, inspection of the institution and to take a decision on the basis of report submitted pursuant thereto as to whether the institution in question, having regard to Entry 66 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, has the requisite infrastructural facilities for imparting education to the teachers. 17. For the afore-mentioned purpose, it is not necessary for us to determine the question as to whether the provisions of the Regulations are imperative in character or not. There cannot, however, be any doubt or dispute that even if they are directory in nature, substantial compliance thereof was necessary. It is no ground that such an application could not be filed by the first respondent before 31st December, 2004 as it received the NOC issued by the State Government. In view of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations, it was obligatory on the part of the first respondent to file an application, which was complete in all respects. It does not lie in the mouth of the applicant to state that despite requirements of law it would not comply with the same. It is not a case where the requirements were not capable of being complied with. The first respondent was required to show that it has a legal and valid title in respect of the land on which the building in question was required to be constructed. It was also required to furnish the copy of the building plan approved by the competent authority. We have noticed hereinbefore that the application form itself provides for as to what infrastructural facilities are necessary for running the institution. The facilities required to be provided must be commensurate with the requirements stated in the said form itself. One of them is to state the number of different rooms and their respective sizes thereof available in the proposed institution. The facilities required to be provided must be commensurate with the requirements stated in the said form itself. One of them is to state the number of different rooms and their respective sizes thereof available in the proposed institution. So far as the title over the land in question is concerned, it was stated by the respondent that the land is available in the name of institution on a long-term basis. It is not disputed that copy of the registered Deed of Lease was furnished for the first time by the first respondent on 9.6.2005. Similarly, complete information as to whether the building plan had been sanctioned or not was furnished only on the said date. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 18. We may notice that a Division Bench of this Court in Krishnasamy Reddiar Educational Trust v. Member Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education and Anr. reported in AIR 2005 SC 2785 , opined that: “18. It was submitted that in the present matters, all the appellants were applying for the first time and as such they were required to follow the Regulations in force, operative and applicable to fresh applications. In such cases, Notes (1) and (2) of Appendix 1-B (list of essential documents) will apply. Notes (1) and (2) read thus: (1) If the application is found incomplete i.e. with all the essential documents, the institution may be asked to make good deficiencies in the application on or before the last date prescribed in the Regulations. (2) In the event when deficiencies in an application get removed only after the last date, the application of the institution shall be carried forward by the Regional Committee for consideration for the subsequent academic year i.e. for the course that would be offered one year later. 19. In our view, the respondents are right in submitting that there was delay on the part of the appellants. In all the three cases, applications were submitted without NOC from the State Government. It has come on record that NOC was applied for belatedly. The State Government could not be blamed for not taking a decision on the applications of the appellants as under Regulation 6 as amended in 2003, it was required to dispose of such applications within six months of the last date of receipt of applications. It has come on record that NOC was applied for belatedly. The State Government could not be blamed for not taking a decision on the applications of the appellants as under Regulation 6 as amended in 2003, it was required to dispose of such applications within six months of the last date of receipt of applications. Even prior to the amended Regulation 6, it was expected to take decision within "reasonable time" (four months) as held in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute. As the appellants applied for NOC in the last week of October 2003, they cannot make complaint that the State Government delayed the matter. Admittedly, NOCs were submitted to the respondent after the last date of application. If in the above facts and circumstances, recognition has been granted by the respondent on 28-10-2004 by imposing a condition that it would be operative from academic year 2005-2006, it cannot be said that the respondent had acted illegally, arbitrarily or otherwise unreasonably.” (v) In Annamalai University represented by Registrar v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and Others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the regulations framed by UGC to determine standards of education are binding on all Universities under Open University System as per the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985, and conventional formal University. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: “42. The provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all Universities whether conventional or open. Its powers are very broad. Regulations framed by it, in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 26 are of wide amplitude. They apply equally to Open Universities as also to formal conventional universities. In the matter of higher education, it is necessary to maintain minimum standards of instructions. Such minimum standards of instructions are required to be defined by UGC. The standards and the coordination of work or facilities in universities must be maintained and for that purpose required to be regulated. The powers of UGC under Sections 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(g) are very broad in nature. Subordinate legislation as is well known when validly made becomes part of the Act. The standards and the coordination of work or facilities in universities must be maintained and for that purpose required to be regulated. The powers of UGC under Sections 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(g) are very broad in nature. Subordinate legislation as is well known when validly made becomes part of the Act. We have noticed hereinbefore that the functions of the UGC are all pervasive in respect of the matters specified in Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12A and Clauses (a) and (c) of Sub-section (2) thereof. xxx xxx xxx 44. It has not been denied or disputed before us that in the matter of laying down qualification of the teachers, running of the University and the matters provided for under the UGC Act are applicable and binding on all concerned. Regulations framed, as noticed hereinbefore, clearly aimed at the Open Universities. When the Regulations are part of the statute, it is difficult to comprehend as to how the same which operate in a different field would be ultra vires the Parliamentary Act. IGNOU has not made any regulation; it has not made any ordinance. It is guided by the Regulations framed by the UGC. The validity of the provisions of the Regulations has not been questioned either by IGNOU or by the appellant -University. From a letter dated 5.5.2004 issued by Mr. H.P. Dikshit, who was not only the Vice-Chancellor but also the Chairman of the DEC of IGNOU it is evident that the appellant -University has violated the mandatory provisions of the Regulations. 45. The amplitude of the provisions of the UGC Act vis-à-vis the Universities constituted under the State Universities Act which would include within its purview a University made by the Parliament also is now no longer a res integra. xxx xxx xxx 50. The UGC Act, thus, having been enacted by the Parliament in terms of Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India would prevail over the Open University Act. xxx xxx xxx 59. The provisions of UGC Act are not in conflict with the provisions of Open University Act. It is beyond any cavil of doubt that UGC Act shall prevail over Open University Act. 30. It has, however, been argued that Open University Act is a later Act. But we have noticed hereinbefore that the nodal ministry knew of the provisions of both the acts. It is beyond any cavil of doubt that UGC Act shall prevail over Open University Act. 30. It has, however, been argued that Open University Act is a later Act. But we have noticed hereinbefore that the nodal ministry knew of the provisions of both the acts. Regulations were framed almost at the same time after passing of the Open University Act. Regulations were framed at a later point of time. Indisputably, the regulations embrace within its fold the matters covered under Open University Act also.” (vi) In Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. Mangal Singh and Others reported in (2011) 11 SCC 702 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: “16. It is well settled law that the Regulations made under the statute laying down the terms and conditions of service of employees, including the grant of retirement benefits, has the force of law. The Regulations validly made under statutory powers are binding and effective as the enactment of the competent legislature. The statutory bodies as well as general public are bound to comply with the terms and conditions laid down in the Regulations as a legal compulsion. Any action or order in breach of the terms and conditions of the Regulations shall amount to violation of Regulations which are in the nature of statutory provisions and shall render such action or order illegal and invalid. 17. In Sukhdev Singh and Others v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Another [ (1975) 1 SCC 421 ], this Court, while elaborately discussing the nature and effect of the Regulations made under the Statute, has observed: “23. The noticeable feature is that these statutory bodies have no free hand in framing the conditions and terms of service of their employees. These statutory bodies are bound to apply the terms and conditions as laid down in the Regulations. The statutory bodies are not free to make such terms as they think fit and proper. Regulations prescribe the terms of appointment, conditions of service and procedure for dismissing employees. These Regulations in the statutes are described as "status fetters on freedom of contract". The Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act in Section 12 specifically enacts that the terms and conditions of the employees may be such as may be provided by Regulations. There is a legal compulsion on the Commission to comply with the Regulations. These Regulations in the statutes are described as "status fetters on freedom of contract". The Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act in Section 12 specifically enacts that the terms and conditions of the employees may be such as may be provided by Regulations. There is a legal compulsion on the Commission to comply with the Regulations. Any breach of such compliance would be a breach of the Regulations which are statutory provisions. In other statutes under consideration viz. the Life Insurance Corporation Act and the Industrial Finance Corporation Act though there is no specific provision comparable to Section 12 of the 1959 Act the terms and conditions of employment and conditions of service are provided for by Regulations. These Regulations are not only binding on the authorities but also on the public. .... 30. In this view a Regulation is not an agreement or contract but a law binding the corporation, its officers, servants and the members of the public who come within the sphere of its operations. The doctrine of ultra vires as applied to statutes, rules and orders should equally apply to the Regulations and any other subordinate legislation. The Regulations made under power conferred by the statute are subordinate legislation and have the force and effect, if validly made, as the Act passed by the competent legislature. .... 33. There is no substantial difference between a rule and a Regulation inasmuch as both are subordinate legislation under powers conferred by the statute. A Regulation framed under a statute applies uniform treatment to every one or to all members of some group or class. The Oil and Natural Gas Commission, the Life Insurance Corporation and Industrial Finance Corporation are all required by the statute to frame Regulations inter alia for the purpose of the duties and conduct and conditions of service of officers and other employees. These Regulations impose obligation on the statutory authorities. The statutory authorities cannot deviate from the conditions of service. Any deviation will be enforced by legal sanction of declaration by courts to invalidate actions in violation of rules and Regulations. The existence of rules and Regulations under statute is to ensure regular conduct with a distinctive attitude to that conduct as a standard. The statutory Regulations in the cases under consideration give the employees a statutory status and impose restriction on the employer and the employee with no option to vary the conditions. The existence of rules and Regulations under statute is to ensure regular conduct with a distinctive attitude to that conduct as a standard. The statutory Regulations in the cases under consideration give the employees a statutory status and impose restriction on the employer and the employee with no option to vary the conditions. An ordinary individual in a case of master and servant contractual relationship enforces breach of contractual terms. The remedy in such contractual relationship of master and servant is damages because personal service is not capable of enforcement. In cases of statutory bodies, there is no personal element whatsoever because of the impersonal character of statutory bodies. In the case of statutory bodies it has been said that the element of public employment or service and the support of statute require observance of rules and Regulations.” (vii) In Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P. and Ors. [ (2013) 2 SCC 617 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “81. Lastly, the question which is required to be discussed in light of the facts of the present cases is adherence to the Schedule. Once the relevant Schedules have been prescribed under the Regulations or under the Judge made law, none, whosoever it be, is entitled to carve out exceptions to the prescribed Schedule. Adherence to the Schedule is the essence of granting admission in a fair and transparent manner as well as to maintain the standards of education. The purpose of providing a time schedule is to ensure that all concerned authorities act within the stipulated time. Where, on the one hand, it places an obligation upon the authorities to act according to the Schedule, there it also provides complete clarity to other stakeholders as to when their application would either be accepted and/or rejected and what will be the time duration for it to be processed at different quarters. It also gives clear understanding to the students for whose benefit the entire process is set up as to when their examinations would be held, when results would be declared and when they are expected to take admission to different colleges in order of merit obtained by them in the entrance examinations or other processes for the purposes of subject and college preference. 82. 82. We are constrained to reiterate with emphasis at our command that the prescribed schedules under the Regulations and the judgments must be strictly adhered to without exceptions. None in the hierarchy of the State Government, University, NCTE or any other authority or body involved in this process can breach the Schedule for any direct or indirect reason. Anybody who is found to be defaulting in this behalf is bound to render himself or herself liable for initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as well as for a disciplinary action in accordance with the orders of the Court. In the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust and Ors. v. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors. Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) 26086 of 2012, decided on the same date, this Court held as under: “29... Time schedule is one such condition specifically prescribed for admission to the colleges. Adherence to admission schedule is again a subject which requires strict conformity by all concerned, without exception. Reference in this regard can be made to Ranjan Purohit and Ors. v. Rajasthan University of Health Science and Ors. (2012) 8 SCALE 71 at this stage, in addition to the judgment of this Court in the case of Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh (2002) 7 SCC 258 .” 83. Undoubtedly, adherence to Schedule achieves the object of the Act and its various aspects. Disobedience results in unfair admissions, not commencing the courses within the stipulated time and causing serious prejudice to the students of higher merit resulting in defeating the rule of merit. Xx xxx xxx 91.1. The schedule stated in the case of College of Professional Education (supra) and in this judgment in relation to admissions, recognition, affiliation and commencement of courses shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned including the NCTE, the State Government and the University/examining body. 91.2. In the event of disobedience of schedule and/or any attempt to overreach or circumvent the judgment of this Court and the directions contained herein, the concerned person shall render himself or herself liable for proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and even for departmental disciplinary action in accordance with law.” (viii) In Parshavanath Charitable Trust and Ors. v. All India Council for Tech. Edu and Ors. [ (2013) 3 SCC 385 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “25. v. All India Council for Tech. Edu and Ors. [ (2013) 3 SCC 385 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “25. It is also a settled principle that the regulations framed by the Central authorities such as the 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. In the case of AICTE v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan [ (2009) 11 SCC 726 ], this Court, while stating the principles that the courts may not substitute their opinion in place of opinion of the Council, held as under: “17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and 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, courts will step in. In Dr. J.P. Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, AllahabadUniversity[(1980) IILJ 175 SC], this Court observed: “11.........Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread... 12. .......While there is no absolute bar, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.” 18. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh KumarSheth[ (1985) 1 SCR 29 ], 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 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. 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. 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.” 26. Right from the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. etc. etc. [ (1993) 1 SCC 645 ], this Court has unequivocally held that the right to establish an educational institution does not carry within it the right to recognition or the right to affiliation. Grant of recognition or affiliation is neither a matter of course nor is it a formality. Admission to the privileges of a University is a power to be exercised with great care keeping in view the interest of the public at large and the nation. Recognition has to be as per statutorily prescribed conditions and their strict adherence by all concerned. These conditions of recognition and the duly notified directions controlling the admission process are to be construed and applied stricto sensu. They cannot be varied from case to case. Time schedule is one such condition specifically prescribed for admission to the colleges. Adherence to admission schedule is again a subject which requires strict conformity by all concerned, without exception. Reference in this regard can be made to Ranjan Purohit and Ors. They cannot be varied from case to case. Time schedule is one such condition specifically prescribed for admission to the colleges. Adherence to admission schedule is again a subject which requires strict conformity by all concerned, without exception. Reference in this regard can be made to Ranjan Purohit and Ors. v. Rajasthan University of Health Science andOrs.[ (2012) 8 SCALE 71 ] at this stage, in addition to the case of Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh[ (2002) 7 SCC 258 ]. xxx xxxx xxxxx 35. It is the requirement of law that there should be strict adherence to the time schedule for grant of approval as well as for admissions without exception. In exercise of the powers vested in the AICTE, under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the AICTE Act, it had made Regulations namely the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Staffing New Technical Institution, Introduction of Course and Programmes and Approval of Intake Capacity) Regulations, 1994. Schedule to these Regulations. 46.1. Both grant/refusal of approval and admission schedule, as aforestated, shall be strictly adhered to by all the authorities concerned including the AICTE, University, State Government and any other authority directly or indirectly connected with the grant of approval and admission. 46.2. No person or authority shall have the power or jurisdiction to vary the Schedule prescribed hereinabove.” (ix) In State of Rajasthan v. LBS B.Ed. College and Ors. reported in (2016) 16 SCC 110 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: “..........................Needless to say, in future, whenever an application is received under the Regulations for grant of recognition, the 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, the NCTE shall take into consideration the recommendations and views of the State despite the fact that it has the final say.” 19. Needless to say, the NCTE shall take into consideration the recommendations and views of the State despite the fact that it has the final say.” 19. Though the appellant has made a contention as to how permission was granted to the institution to start two units with 100 students in 2006, and that the request of the appellant to reduce it to one unit was considered in 2017, and therefore, writ court ought to have issued a writ of mandamus as prayed for, we are afraid to grant the reliefs sought for by the appellant for the reason that first of all to seek for enforcement of the right, if any, the appellant ought to have submitted the application within the time specified in Regulation 5 of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014. 20. Admittedly, the application has been submitted in July, 2020, which is beyond the time specified. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the regulations provide for a time schedule for submission of application through online mode, but the same was not provided and hence, the application could not be sent through post, we are not inclined to accept the same. Even though the online facility is not extended for some reason, nothing prevented the applicant from sending the application in time. 21. When the applicant has not submitted the application within the specified time, he cannot be said to have a right. In such a view of the matter, writ court has considered the decisions as to whether a writ of mandamus can be issued or not, which are reproduced. “(i) In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [ (1977) 4 SCC 145 ], a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. (ii) In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain [ (2008) 2 SCC 280 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed that the principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated in 'The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr. that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. (iii) In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [ (1996) 9 SCC 309 ] the Hon'ble Apex Court held that under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. (iv) In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [ (2011) 10 SCC 259 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that, generally, no court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law.” 22. The Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law.” 22. Decisions relied on by the learned single Judge cannot be said to be inappropriate. On the aspect when a writ of mandamus can be issued, we used to quote the following decisions: (i) In State of Kerala v. A. Lakshmi Kutty reported in (1986) 4 SCC 632 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, a Writ of Mandamus is not a writ of course or a writ of right but is, as a rule, discretionary. There must be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which a mandamus will lie. The legal right to enforce the performance of a duty must be in the applicant himself. In general, therefore, the Court will only enforce the performance of statutory duties by public bodies on application of a person who can show that he has himself a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of a right is the foundation of the jurisdiction of a Court to issue a writ of Mandamus. (ii) In Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S.Jegannathan, reported in AIR 1987 SC 537 - (1986) 2 SCC 679 , a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Edition, Vol. I, Paragraph 89, about the efficacy of mandamus: "89. Nature of Mandamus.--.... is to remedy defects of justice; and accordingly it will issue, to the end that justice may be done, in all cases where there is a specific legal right and no specific legal remedy, for enforcing that right; and it may issue in cases where, although there is an alternative legal remedy, yet that mode of redress is less convenient, beneficial and effectual." (iii) In Raisa Begum v. State of U.P., reported in 1995 All.L.J. 534, the Allahabad High Court has held that certain conditions have to be satisfied before a writ of mandamus is issued. The petitioner for a writ of mandamus must show that he has a legal right to compel the respondent to do or abstain from doing something. There must be in the petitioner a right to compel the performance of some duty cast on the respondents. The duty sought to be enforced must have three qualities. The petitioner for a writ of mandamus must show that he has a legal right to compel the respondent to do or abstain from doing something. There must be in the petitioner a right to compel the performance of some duty cast on the respondents. The duty sought to be enforced must have three qualities. It must be a duty of public nature created by the provisions of the Constitution or of a statute or some rule of common law. (iv) Writ of mandamus cannot be issued merely because, a person is praying for. One must establish the right first and then he must seek for the prayer to enforce the said right. If there is failure of duty by the authorities or inaction, one can approach the Court for a mandamus. The said position is well settled in a series of decisions. (a) In State of U.P. and Ors. v. Harish Chandra and Ors., reported in (1996) 9 SCC 309 , at paragraph 10, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: “10. ...Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition....” (b) In Union of India v. S.B. Vohra ( (2004) 2 SCC 150 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the said issue and held that,-'for issuing a writ of mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming, must establish his legal right in himself. Then only a writ of mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so.” (c) In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain reported in (2008) 2 SCC 280 , at paragraphs 11 and 12, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:- “11. Then only a writ of mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so.” (c) In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain reported in (2008) 2 SCC 280 , at paragraphs 11 and 12, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:- “11. The principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr.: “Note 187.-Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duty to which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed. Note 192.-Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty. Note 196.-Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the court, subject always to the well-settled principles which have been established by the courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned-an interest which private litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends. The court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances. Note 206.--.....The correct rule is that mandamus will not lie where the duty is clearly discretionary and the party upon whom the duty rests has exercised his discretion reasonably and within his jurisdiction, that is, upon facts sufficient to support his action.” 12. These very principles have been adopted in our country. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh and others, ( AIR 1977 SC 2149 ), after referring to the earlier decisions in Lekhraj Satramdas Lalvani v. Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer, AIR 1966 SC 334 ; Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College, AIR 1962 SC 1210 and Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar, AIR 1973 SC 964 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows in paragraph 15 of the reports : "15. .......... There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of the officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate Tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. .... It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. .... In the instant case, it has not been shown by respondent No. 1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that respondent No. 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same." (v) When a Writ of Mandamus can be issued, has been summarised in Corpus Juris Secundum, as follows: “Mandamus may issue to compel the person or official in whom a discretionary duty is lodged to proceed to exercise such discretion, but unless there is peremptory statutory direction that the duty shall be performed mandamus will not lie to control or review the exercise of the discretion of any board, tribunal or officer, when the act complained of is either judicial or quasi-judicial unless it clearly appears that there has been an abuse of discretion on the part of such Court, board, tribunal or officer, and in accordance with this rule mandamus may not be invoked to compel the matter of discretion to be exercised in any particular way. This principle applies with full force and effect, however, clearly it may be made to appear what the decision ought to be, or even though its conclusion be disputable or, however, erroneous the conclusion reached may be, and although there may be no other method of review or correction provided by law. This principle applies with full force and effect, however, clearly it may be made to appear what the decision ought to be, or even though its conclusion be disputable or, however, erroneous the conclusion reached may be, and although there may be no other method of review or correction provided by law. The discretion must be exercised according to the established rule where the action complained has been arbitrary or capricious, or based on personal, selfish or fraudulent motives, or on false information, or on total lack of authority to act, or where it amounts to an evasion of positive duty, or there has been a refusal to consider pertinent evidence, hear the parties where so required, or to entertain any proper question concerning the exercise of the discretion, or where the exercise of the discretion is in a manner entirely futile and known by the officer to be so and there are other methods which it adopted, would be effective." (emphasis supplied) 23. In the light of the decisions cited supra, the regulations issued by the NCTE in exercise of the statutory provisions, have the statutory force and, therefore, the Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi, respondent, cannot be directed to consider an application, which has been submitted beyond the specified time. Giving due consideration to the regulations and the decisions cited supra, we find no illegality in the impugned judgment, warranting interference. Writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.