HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting.) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2) (b) Description of the case. WPSS No. 51/2005 Munni Upreti (Munni Pathak) Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others Approved for reporting. ____________-- Not approved for reporting Date of decision 19.06.2006 Initial of Judge 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 51 (SS) OF 2005 Munni Upreti (Munni Pathak), W/o Ramesh Chandra Upreti, Village Roorkee, Tehsil Champawat, District-Champawat. …………Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary Education Dehradun. 2. Assistant Director Education Nainital. 3. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari District Champawat. 4. Principal Zila Shiksha and Parshikshan Sansthan Didihat Pithoragarh ……….Respondents. Mr. Syed Nadim, Advocate for the petitioner. Standing Counsel for the respondents. & WRIT PETITIN NO. 853 (SS) OF 2005 1. Pradeed Chandra Ramola, S/o Vidyanand Ramola, R/o Village Navagaon, Patti Bhandarsue, Tehisl Dunda, District-Uttarkashi. 2. Digpal Chandra Ramola, S/o Sri Uttam Chand, R/o Navagaon, Patti Bhandarsu, Tehsil Dunda, District- Uttar Kashi. 3. Balendra Singh Bhandari, S/o Sri Dharam Singh, R/o Ramoli Patti Dashgi, Tehsil Dunda, District-Uttarkashi. …………..Petitioners. Versus 3 1. State of Uttaranchal, though Secretary Education Dehradun. 2. Assistant Director Education, Nainital. 3. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District – Almora. 4. Principal Zila Shiksha and Parshikshan Sansthan Almora. ……………Respondents. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Standing Counsel for the respondents. & WRIT PETITION NO. 529 (S/S) OF 2005 1. Sivendra Singh Bisht, S/o Shri Bachan Singh Bisht, R/o Village-Nakholi, Vikas Khand-Narayan Bagar, District Chamoli. 2. Hukum Singh Bisht, S/o Chandra Singh Bisht, R/o Village Pal Chauni, Narayan Bagar, District Chamoli. 3. Dalbir Singh Negi, S/o Ram Singh Negi, R/o Vikas Khand – Narayan Bagad, District Chamoli. 4. Mahipal Singh Negi, S/o Goptal Singh Negi, R/o Vikas Khand – Narayan Bagad, District Chamoli. 5. Prithvi Singh Rawat, S/o Goptal Singh Rawat, R/o Vikas Khand – Narayan Bagad, District Chamoli. 6. Mohan Chand Kuniyal, S/o Maya Ram Kuniyal, R/o Village Ulangara, Post Office-Ulangara (Devbal) Tharali, District—Chamoli. 7. Suresh Chand Kuniyal, R/o Baban Bera, Post Office- Ulangara (Devbal) Tharali, District – Chamoli. …………………Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, though its Secretary Education (Basic), Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 4 2. Director Basic Evam Madhyamik Education, Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 3. Principal District Education & Training Institute Gauchar, District – Chamoli. …………………..Respondents. Sri M.S. Pal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri B.S. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. & WRIT PETITION No. 568 (S/S) OF 2005 Rajendra Prasad Joshi, son of D.N. Joshi, resident of village and Post-Baralu, District-Pithoragarh. ……..Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary Department of Basic Education, Govt. of Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 2. Principal, District Education and Training Institute, Didihat, District Pithoragarh. 3. Director of Basic Education, Uttaranchal, Dehradun. ………………………Respondents. Sri K.N. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. & WRIT PETITION NO. 395 (SS) OF 2005 Ram Singh Bohra, S/o Sri Lachaman Singh Bohra, R/o Village-Koyati, Post Office Koyati, District-Champawat. ………….Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary, Department of Basic Education, Govt. of Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 2. Principal, District Education and Training Institute, Didihat, District Pithoragarh. 3. Director of Basic Education, Uttaranchal, Dehradun. ………………………Respondents. Sri K.N. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. & WRIT PETITION NO. 49 (SS) OF 2005 Sarvita Agarwal, W/o Sh. Rajeev Agarwal, 5 R/o Mohalla Jagdamba Vihar Drona Sagar Road, Kashiput, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar. ……….Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary, Basic Education, Govt. of Uttaranchal. 2. Director of Basic Education, Dehradun, Uttaranchal,. 3. The Principal, District Education and Training Institute, Bhimtal, Distt. Nainital, Uttaranchal. ………………………Respondents. Mr. G.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. & * WRIT PETITION NO. 7279 (SS) OF 2001 Rajendra Kumar, A/a 32 years, S/o Shri Tika Rama Murari, R/o Village Forti Post Lohaghat, District-Champawat. …Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through its Secretary, Dehradunal. 2. Principal, District Education and Training (D.I.E.T.), Didihat, District Pithoragarh. ………Respondents. Mr. Ashish Kumar Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Standing Counsel for the respondents. * Writ petition withdrawn and dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2006 (Sd/-) & WRIT PETITION NO. 7166 (SS) OF 2001 1. Nand Kishore Kotnala, S/o Shri Permanand Kotwala, R/o Bhajangarh Kailash Gate, Tehri Garhwsal. 2. Usha Nautiyal, D/o Ghanshyam Nautiyal, R/o Dhalwala, Tehri Garhwal. 3. Govind Singh Bhandari, S/o Sundar Singh Bhandari, R/o Bhajangarh Kailash Gate, Tehri Garhwal. 4. Rakesh Kumar, S/o Kamleshwar Prasad, 14 Vidya, tehri Garhwal. 5. Km. Neelam Dabral, D/o Jeeva Singh Dabral, Guvaniwala, Rishikesh. 6 6. Uttam Singh, S/o Dilip Singh, 210 C.P. Sharma Dehradun Road. 7. Buddhi Prakash, S/o Suryamani, Village Karkur Chogi Tehri Garhwal. …..Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary, Education (Basic), Dehradun. 2. Principal, District Education and Training (D.I.E.T.), Madan Negi, District Tehri Garhwal ………..……Respondents. Mr. Ashish Kumar Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Standing Counsel for the respondents. & WRIT PETITION NO. 220 (SS) OF 2004 Pushpendra Kuamr, S/o Mr. Om Prakash Singh, R/o Murliwala, Tehsil-Jaspur, Distt – Udham Singh Nagar. …Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary Education, Dehradun. 2. Assistant Director, Education, Nainital, Distt.-Nainital. 3. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Principal, Zila Shiksha & Prashikshan Sansthan, Bhimtal, Nainital. ………..Respondents. Mr.Khalil Ahamd, Advocate for the petitioner. 7 Standing Counsel for the respondents. & WRIT PETITION NO. 610 (SS) OF 2005 Smt. Leela Mehta, W/o Sri Mahipal Singh Mehta, R/o Village Panth Gaon, Tehsil & District- Bagehswar. ….Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary, Department of Basic Education, Govt. of Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 2. Director of Basic Education, Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 3. Principal, District Education & Training Institute, Almora ……………………Respondents. Mr. Pradeem Hairiya, Advocate for the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the respondents. & WRIT PETITION NO. 201 (SS) OF 2005 Neeraj Kr. Saxena, S/o Shri Rames Bahadur Lal Saxena, R/o 49, Civil Lines, Rudrapur, District-Udham Singh Nagar. ….Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, Through Secretary, In the Department of Education, Dehradun. 8 2. Director of Education, Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 3. Principal, District Education and Training Institute, Bhimtal, District-Nainital. …….Respondents. Sri T.A. Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard counsel for both the parties. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for training of Special B.T.C. as she is permanent resident of Uttaranchal and possesses requisite qualification according to the advertisement dated 5th August 2004. Briefly sated, the petitioners after passing graduation and post graduation, passed Shiksha Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan Allahabad (Hindi University) in different years before 1992. According to the petitioners, Shiksha Visharad is equivalent to B.Ed Syllabus of the University. The requirement in the advertisement is quoted below:- ^^vfuok;Z ;ksX;rk,a& 1- ‘kSf{kd& fof/k ekU;rk izkIr fo’ofo|ky; ls LukrdA 2- izf’k{k.k%& bl gsrq mRrjkapy@mRrjizns’k dh ekU;rk izkIr laLFkk }kjk laLFkkxr ijh{kkFkhZ;ks ds :i esa ch0,M0@,Yk0Vh0 vFkok iz=kpkj ds ek/;e ls ch0 ,M0 gsrq ekU;rk izkIr fo’ofo|ky; ls ch0,M0 mRrh.kZ fd;k x;k gksA ftUgksus laLd`r fo’ofo|ky; ls f’k{kk ‘kkL=h dh mikf/k yh gks ,oa f’k{kk ‘kkL=h dh ijh{kk laLFkkxr ijh{kkFkhZ ds :i esa mRrh.kZ dh gks o Hkh vgZ gksaxsA mRrjizns’k ljdkj }kjk EkkU;rk izkIr ,slh laLFkkvks tks jk”Vªh; v/;kid izf’k{k.k ifj”kn }kjk ekU;rk izkIr gksa] ls ‘kkjhfjd f’k{kk izf’k{k.k ;Fkk ch0ih0,M] Mh0ih0,M0] lh0ih0,M0 vH;FkhZ Hkh vgZ le>s tk,axsA blds laca/k esa mRrj izns’k ‘kklu }kjk ekU; dh xbZ vof/k ¼o”kZ 9 1997½ rd ekU; dh xbZ laLFkkvks ls mRrh.kZ laLFkkxr vH;fFkZ;ks dks gh vgZ le>k tk,xkA 3- vk;q lhek%& vH;kFkhZ dh vk;q 1 tqykbZ] 2004 dks 18 ls de o 40 ls vf/kd u gksA vkfjf{kr oxZ ds vH;fFkZ;ks dks vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa NwV iznku dh tk,xh tks bl laca/k esa izpfyr ‘kklukns’kksa ds vuqlkj vuqeU; gksxhA 4- vkosnu ‘kqYd%& js[kkafdr iksLVy vkMZj@cSad M~zkQ~V ds :Ik ds :i es 100@& ¼lkS :i;s ek=½ ,l0lh0@,l0Vh0 ds fy, :0 40@& ¼pkyhl :i;s ek=½ ‘kqYd fy;k tk;sxk] tks izkpk;Z ftyk f’k{kk ,oa izf’k{k.k laLFkku MhMhgkV] fiFkkSjkx<+ ds in uke ls ns; gksxkA 5- vafre frfFk%& bPNqd vH;kFkhZ fu/kkZfjr izk:I ij QksVks;qDr vkosnu i= ij] irk fy[k gqvk fyQkik jftLVªh fVdV ;qDr ¼25 X 10 laseh½ leLr a’kSf{kd o izf’k{k.k izek.ki= vad i=ksa rFkk vU; izek.ki=ks dks Loizekf.kr izfr;ksa lfgr jftLVMZ Mkd ds vkpk;Z] ftyk f’k{kk ,oa izf’k{k.k LkaLFkku MhMhgkV fiFkkSjkx<+ ds irs ij foKfIr izdk’ku ds 15 fnu ds Hkhrj vo’; igqqWp tk,aA blds ckn ds vkosnu i=ksas ij dksbZ fopkj ugh fd;k tk;sxkA** According to the case of the petitioner under the U.P. Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) Service Rules, 1983 the courses, which are conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammellan are recognized i.e. Sahitya Ratna (2 years course) from the Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Prayag and is equivalent degree to Bachelors degree in Hindi. Shiksha Visharad equivalent to B.Ed. having not been considered, they approached to this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.. At the time of the admission of the writ petition No. 51 of 2005 on 19.01.2005 following order was passed:- “Heard Mr. Syed Nadim, learned counsel for the petitioner. 10 Mr. N.C. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the State accepts notices on behalf of the respondents, who prays for and is allowed two weeks time for filing the counter affidavit Meanwhile, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondents within a week and the authority concerned shall decide the representation of the petition by a speaking order within two weeks thereafter keeping in view of the Hon’ble High Court’s order dated 17.12.2004 passed in writ petition No. 1478 of 2004 (S/S). List this case on 10th February, 2005 for hearing,” Similar orders have been passed in most of the writ petitions. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, admission was given to some of the petitioners and some of them have completed their training and some of them are having incomplete training. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Standing Counsel, where it has been stated that Shiksha Visharad has not been recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education and as such the same cannot be termed as an equivalent qualification mentioned in the advertisement and the petitioners are not entitled to be selected in Special B.T.C. Standing Council has referred procedure of the N.C.T.E. Act. The preamble of the Act is quoted below:- “An Act to provide for the establishment of a National Council for Teacher education with a view to achieving planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matter connected therewith. 11 BE it enacted by Parliament in the Forty-Fourth year of the Republic of India as follows:-” Section 16 of the National Council for Teacher Education reads as under:- anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no examining body shall, on or after the appointed day,- (a) grant affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution; or (b) hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a recognized institution. unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned, under section 14 or permission for a course or training under section 15. Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 provides as under:- “14. Recognition of institution offering course or training in teacher education.-(1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations; Provided that an institution 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. (2) The fee to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. 12 (3) On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee from any institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall,-- (a) if it is satisfied thatg such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodationi, library, qualified staff, laboratory and tht it fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulations; or (b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing recognition to such institution for reasons to be recorded in writing; Provided that before passing an order under sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the concerned institution for making a written representation. (4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teacher education under sub-section 93) shall be published in the Official Gazette and recommunicated in writing for appropriate action so such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government. (5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3). 13 (6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under sub-section (4),-- (a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or (b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused.” Proviso to Section 14 provides that they shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six month if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. Section 17 (4) provides the contravention and consequence. Sub Clause (4) is quoted as under:- “(4) If an institution offers any course or training in teacher education after the coming into force of the order withdrawing recognition under sub-section (1), or where an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University, or in any school, college or to her educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government.” The said Act was made applicable from 1st July, 1995. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have already qualified the course in different years before 1995 and as such the said Act which was made applicable from 1st July, 1995 is not applicable with the facts of the present case. 14 The petitioners have referred Nirmal Rani (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. and others U.P.L.B.E.C. 2000 (1) Page 86, where the Shiksha Visharad has been held to be equivalent to B.Ed. Relevant paragraph 3 is quoted below:- “3. Petitioner has passed High School and Intermediate Examination of ‘U.P. Board, Allahabad’. She also passed “Madhyama” (Intermediate level), Sahitya Ratna (B.A. Level) as well as Shiksha Visharad Examinations (said to be equivalent to B.Ed.), Teaching Training Course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. Petitioner has filed certain documents (as Annexures-I, II, and III to the Writ Petition) to show that ‘Shiksha Visharad’ of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is recognized as equivalent to B.Ed./Trained Teachers.” The petitioner have also referred Act of Hindi Sahitya Sammellan. The provision of Hindi Sahitya Sammallen is quoted below:- ^^6 ¼p½ f’k{kk fo’kkjn ¼ch0,M0½ ijh{kkFkhZ dks Lukrd] e/;ek vFkok led{k mikf/k /kkjd ds lkFk 2 o”kZ dk v/;kiu dk;Z dk vuqHko gksuk pkfg,A bl ijh{kk esa fuEu 5 iz’u i= gksrs gSaA ^^1& f’k{kk euksfoKku rFkk ‘kSf{kd ewY;kadu 2& f’k{kk fl)kUr rFkk f’k{k.k fof/k;ka] 3& Hkkjrh; f’k{kk dk bfrgkl 4&LokLF; f’k{kk rFkk ikB’kkyk dk izcU/k 5& nsokukfxjh fyfi] fgUnh Hkk”kk vkSj lkfgR; dk bfrgklA bl ijh{kk dk ikB~;dze ch0,M0 ds ikB~;dze ds lkekU; gksrk gSA ijh{kkFkhZ dks fyf[kr ijh{kk ds lkFk&lkFk iz;ksxkRed ijh{kk Hkh nsuh gksxh rFkk mls 20 oknu p;fur fo”k;ksa dk f’k{k.k gsrq ikB~; ;kstuk rS;kj djuh gksxh ftls ijh{kk iwoZ laLFkku dk;kZy; esa tek djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA** Standing counsel has referred the judgment of Shailendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 15 E.S.C. (All. J.) [2004(1)]. In the aforesaid case law, the question with regard to the applicability of the N.C.T.E. Act has not been considered, but only general proposition was considered. Relevant of observations are quoted below:- -“29. Before parting with the case, in order to safeguard the career of the students and the prevent them form being misled by unrecognized degrees, the Court feels it proper to issue directions to thue State Government and the National Council for Teacher Education to ensure that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad which is a body constituted under the provisions of the 1962 Act, does not hold any examinations of a course of teacher training and/or grant affiliation to any institution which has not been recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education. 30. The Court further finds that the provisions of the NCTE Act are not sufficient to deal with unscrupulous person who run institutions/colleges offering unrecognized course of training in teacher education by playing with the career of innocent youths and running their life. Except under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, which deals with the contravention of the provisions o the NCTE Act and consequences thereof by only providing that the unrecognized course or training in teacher education shall not be treated as a valid qualification for the purposes of employment under the Central/State Government, there is no provision in the NCTE Act which may provide any deterrent for such an unscrupulous person. In fact, they go scot free leaving the innocent persons high and dry. Time has come for the Government of India to provide for more stringent provisions in the NCTE Act for dealing with such unscrupulous persons.” 16 The Apex Court in Suresh Pal and others Vs. State of Haryana and other AIR 1987 SC Page 2027 has observed that where it has been held that any enactment cannot be said to apply retrospectively. Relevant observations are quoted below:- “We are of the view that since tat the time when the petitioners joined the course it was recognized by the Govt. of Haryana and it was on the basis of this recognition that the petitioners joined the course, it would be unjust to tell the petitioners now that though at the time of their joining the course it was recognized, yet they cannot be given the enefit of such recognition and the certificates obtained by them would be futile, because during the pendency of the course it was derecognized by the State Govt. on 9th January, 1985. We would, therefore, allow the appeal and direct the State Govt. to recognize the certificates obtained by the petitioners and others similarly situate as a result of completing the certificate course in Shri Hanuman Yayaym Prasarak Mandal Amravati for the purpose of appointment as Physical Training Instructor in Govt. Schools in Haryana. Of course, if any person has joined the certificate course after 9th January, 1985 he would not be entitled to the benefit of this order and any certificate obtained by him from the said Institute would be of no avail.” In State of Mararashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Sanstra Mahavidyalaya & Ors. 2006 AIR SCW 2048, the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court has held as under:- “72. It is thus clear that the Central Government has considered the subject of Secondary Education and Higher Education at the national level. The Act of 1993 also requires 17 Parliament to consider Teacher Education System ‘throughout the country’. NCTE, therefore, in our opinion, is expected to deal with applications for establishing new B.Ed. colleges or allowing increase in intake capacity, keeping in view 1993 Act and planned and co-ordinated development of teacher-education system in the country. It is neither open to the State Government not to a University to consider the local conditions or apply ‘State Policy’ to refuse such permission. In fact, as held by this Court in cases referred to hereinabove, State Government has no power to reject the prayer of an institution or to overrule the decision of NCTE. The action of the State Government, therefore, was contrary to law and has rightly been set aside by the High Court.” In Mohd. Sartaj and another Vs. State of U.P. (S.C.) [2006 (108) FLR 847], the Apex Court has held as under:- “The minimum qualification prescribed under Rule 8 should be fulfilled on the date of recruitment. Equivalence of degree of Moallim-e-Urdu, Jamia Urdu Aligarh with that of B.T.C. in the year, 1994 would not entail the benefit to the appellants on the date they were appointed. The appellants could not have been appointed to the post of Assistant Teachers without having training required under Rule 8. That being the case, the appointments of the appellants were de hors the Rules and could not be treated to be continued. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeals and are, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” In R.N. College, Meerut Vs. Chancellor, B.R. Ambedkar University, Lucknow and others 2006 (2) ALJ 721 (D.B.), it has been held as under:- “There is no provision under the Act by means of which an inference could be drawn that once the recognition is 18 granted, the affiliation has to follow automatically. In the instant case, the Recognition was granted subject to affiliating university ensuring the appointment of thue teachers as per norms of NCTE.UGC/Affiliating University amongst other things. Thus, according to recognition order itself the matter for affiliation of the college with the university was to be examined by Chancellor/Vice Chancellor before grant of affiliation. The affiliation of a college is for the purpose of holding examination of the candidates while the recognition of an institution is for other purpose. When matter of affiliation has to be considered by University, it cannot be expected to act ion mechanical manner without application of mind. ‘Recognition and affiliation’ are two different independent things. thus, the plea cannot be accepted that affiliation by university after recognition by NCTE is to follow as a natural consequence.” Relying upon the judgment Krishnasamy reddiar Educational Trust v. member Secretary National Council for Teacher Education and another, (2005) 4 SCC 89 in National Council for Teacher Education & another Vs. Committee of Management & others, 2006 AIR SCW 1333, the apex Court has held as under:- “18. We may notice that a Division Bench of this Court in Krishsamy Reddiar Educational Trust v. Member Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education and another, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 89, opined that: “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) 19 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. good deficiencies in the application on or before the last date prescribed