JUDGMENT & ORDER : Sandeep Mehta, J. Through this intra-court writ appeal, the appellant/writ petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 05.04.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition (C) No. 3214/2019 filed by him seeking declaration to the effect (i) that the B.Ed. degrees of the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 be held to be invalid as they did not procure such B.Ed. degrees from an institution having approval/recognition from the National Council for Teacher’s Education (hereinafter referred to as “NCTE”), (ii) to set aside and quash the selection of the respondent no. 6 on the post of Principal of the Desha Bhakta Tarun Ram Phukan Higher Secondary School, Silchar and (iii) to direct the respondent authorities to select and appoint the petitioner as Principal of the said school. 2. Learned counsel Mr. I.H. Saikia, representing the appellant vehemently and fervently contended that the admitted position, as portrayed from the record, is that the institution named Silchar College of Education, from which the respondent no. 6 obtained B.Ed. degree was not having requisite NCTE recognition/approval for the academic session 1997-1998. However, provisional recognition was granted to the said institution for the session 1998-1999. Hence the B.Ed. degree of the respondent no. 6 is invalid. Likewise, challenge is laid to the B.Ed. degrees obtained by the respondent nos. 7 and 8 on the very same ground that the institution from which such B.Ed. degrees were granted was not having NCTE recognition and B.Ed. degrees of these respondents were invalid and would not qualify them for the post of Principal of Higher Secondary School. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel submitted that the appellant herein stood just below in merit after the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 in the selection process held pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.06.2016 inviting applications for filling up the post of Principal of the Desha Bhakta Tarun Ram Phukan Higher Secondary School, Silchar. Since the B.Ed. degree held by the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 were not valid, even though they stood higher in merit, none of them could have been selected and appointed as Principal. Mr. Since the B.Ed. degree held by the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 were not valid, even though they stood higher in merit, none of them could have been selected and appointed as Principal. Mr. Saikia placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in (2022) 5 SCC 179 and urged that by the said judgment, the controversy that all the educational institutions are bound by the UGC Regulations has been laid to rest. It was thus contended that as the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 did not acquire their B.Ed. degrees from an institution recognised by the NCTE, they were not qualified to hold the post of Principal and their selection against such post is liable to be struck down. 3. Per contra, Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel representing respondent no. 6 vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel. It was contended that the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “NCTE Act”) came into force in the year 1995. The procedure for seeking recognition under the NCTE Act is provided in Section 14, which stipulates that every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, shall make an application for recognition to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations. The proviso to Section 14 stipulates that the institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. It was further submitted that the Nation Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997 were notified on 03.12.1997. The procedure for filing application for recognition to the Regional Committee was for the first time prescribed under these rules. It was further submitted that the Nation Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997 were notified on 03.12.1997. The procedure for filing application for recognition to the Regional Committee was for the first time prescribed under these rules. It was further submitted that the NCTE communicated to the Assam University, Silchar, vide letter dated 29th July, 1997 giving extension of time to file applications for recognition till 18.08.1997, because it was noted that after coming into force of the NCTE Act, many of the colleges did not apply for recognition within the stipulated time due to lack of information about the procedure. The Silchar College of Education filed the application to the NCTE for recognition on 27.05.1997. The respondent no. 6, even before that date, had been admitted into the B.Ed. course being offered by the Silchar College, procured B.Ed. degree for the academic session 1997-1998. The last date for submission of application for recognition was extended by the NCTE up to 18.08.1998 and since the respondent no. 6 completed her B.Ed. course in the intervening period, her case would be covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Bhupendra Nath Tripathi & Ors., reported in (2010) 13 SCC 203 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering the import of Section 14(5) read with Section 14(1), had taken the following view: “19. ................ Section 14(5) read with Section 14(1) enables the institution offering a course or training in teacher education on the appointed day to continue the course or training as the case may be during the pendency of the application seeking recognition and even in case of refusal of recognition, the course may have to be discontinued, only at the end of academic session, the institution offering training or course is entitled to award degree or certificate as the case may be.” It was contended by the learned counsel representing the respondent no. 6 that the NCTE has the power to extend the date of filing application by the B.Ed. Colleges by virtue of Section 12 of the NCTE Act. On these grounds, learned counsel for the respondents implored the Court to affirm the impugned judgment and to dismiss the appeal. 4. 6 that the NCTE has the power to extend the date of filing application by the B.Ed. Colleges by virtue of Section 12 of the NCTE Act. On these grounds, learned counsel for the respondents implored the Court to affirm the impugned judgment and to dismiss the appeal. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the bar and have gone through the impugned judgment, the material placed on record, the statutory provisions involved and the precedents cited at the bar. 5. The controversy that has emerged for adjudication by this Court is as to whether the NCTE had the jurisdiction to extend the date for filing of application for affiliation. Needless to say that as per Section 14 of the NCTE Act the application seeking grant of recognition was required to be submitted to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations. Manifestly, such application could only have been filed as per the procedure prescribed by the Regulations. There is no dispute that the NCTE Regulations were notified on 03.12.1997. Thus, before coming into force of the regulations there was no prescribed procedure for an educational institution to have filed application seeking affiliation with the NCTE. 6. Section 12 of the NCTE Act enjoins upon the council a duty to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and coordinated development of teacher education. In our considered opinion, recognition being an integral part of the duties defined under Section 14, the council was definitely clothed with the power to grant extension to the concerned colleges at least during the transitional period. The NCTE issued letters on 10.07.1997 and 29.07.1997 intimating the Registrar of Assam University, Silchar, to intimate the existing institutions to apply for recognition by 18.08.1997. It is further not in dispute that the Silchar College of Education submitted the application for recognition on 12.08.1997, i.e., within the extended period. Thus, the institution from which the private respondents acquired their B.Ed. degrees, having applied for recognition within the extended time as provided by the NCTE, was fully entitled to intake students and impart B.Ed. degree course for the sessions, which commenced before 18.08.1997. The respondent NCTE, by affidavit-in-opposition filed in the writ proceedings has affirmed the fact that the B.Ed. degree obtained by the respondent no. 6 was a valid degree. degrees, having applied for recognition within the extended time as provided by the NCTE, was fully entitled to intake students and impart B.Ed. degree course for the sessions, which commenced before 18.08.1997. The respondent NCTE, by affidavit-in-opposition filed in the writ proceedings has affirmed the fact that the B.Ed. degree obtained by the respondent no. 6 was a valid degree. This position of law has been crystallised by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Bhupendra Nath Tripathi (supra) referred to above. 7. The judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, lays down the principle that UGC Regulations would prevail in case the State Act is not in conformity with the same. There is no dispute to such proposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the factual situation of the case in hand makes it clear that the Silchar College of Education had applied to the NCTE for grant of recognition for B.Ed. degree course within time and such recognition was granted, albeit after some delay. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of P. Kasilingam & Ors. vs. P.S.G. College of Technology & Ors., reported in (1995) 2 SCC 348 observed that many provisions of the Act (NCTE Act) could be put into operation only after the relevant provisions or forms came to be prescribed in the Rules/Regulations. In the absence of the Rules, the Act cannot be enforced. As the NCTE Regulations were notified on 03.12.1997, it would not have been possible for the colleges to apply for recognition during this period which was thereafter extended from time to time. 9. Be that as it may, the students who had commenced their B.Ed. degree course in the Silchar College in the intervening period would definitely be protected by the Extension Letters dated 29.07.1997 and 10.07.1997. The learned Single Judge, after interpreting the factual and legal issues involved in the matter has dismissed the writ petition. In our view, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. Hence, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merits. 10. No order as to cost.