\ MP’@) $23§é ® @ % m HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI5GARH AT BILASPUR @\6W WRIT PETITION No.6351/2006 WRIT PETITION [c] No.3271/200? PETITIONER Konark Shiksha Mahavidhyalay, Koksa. Vs RESPONDENT$ ‘ $+a+e of Chha‘Hisgarh & ofhers L WRIT PETITION [c] N0509éla097 PETITIONER5 Roopresh & ofhers Vs REsPONDENTs Sfa're of Chhaf'risgarh & oi'hers ‘ WRIT PETITION {c1 NO.5095/2007 WRIT PETITION [c1 MO‘4057/2007 PETITIONER5 Vogesh Chand Mishra & ofhers L_.__...~¥ Vs RESPONDENTs Guru Ghasidas Universi’fy, Bilaspur & others 1 & WRIT PETITION [cJ_NO . 3326/2007 /’ EQ§T FQQ ORDEZ ON @‘Tw APRIL, zooa/V//’ ,/ PETITIONER ’Associa‘rion of Priva‘fe Professional Unaided CoHeges of Chhn‘r‘risgnrh. Vs REsPONDENTS sfnfe of Chha‘r‘risgarh and others 9ETITIONERS Ku. Madhubofu & ofher‘s Vs kEsPONDENTS STu‘re of ChhoT+isgorh & others PETITIONERS Vogesh Kumar Sharma & ofhers l Vs RESPONDENTs ‘ Guru Ghasidas Universi'ry, Bilaspur & o‘rhers PETITIONER Associufion of Priva'l'e Professiona! Unuided Colleges of ChhaYfisgarh Through its General Secre'fary, M. Tahir Khan, 5/0. Lafe 5hri IsmnH Khan, aged about 57 year's. R/o Ruhgm College of Engineering dl Technology, Kohka, Kurud Road, Bhlali, Disfr‘icf Durg (C‘G.) RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION [c] NO.3271/2007 PETITIONER mfe of Chhu‘l’fisgarh Through fhe Secretary, School Educafion Deparfmen‘r, D.K.5. Bhavan, Mom‘ruluya, Raipur (C.6.) .Direc‘ror, Sfafe Educafion Research and Training Council, Shankar Nogar, Raipur (C.G.) M) .Pf. Ravishankar Shukla Universify, Raipur through ifs Regis‘rmr, Roipur (C.G.). Konark Shiksha Mahovidyoloy of Koksu Tuh. Janjgir, DisH. Jonjgir-Champa, Chho‘r‘risgarh, A Privaie Unaided College, represenfed by ifs Secre'mry (Kamal Singh, aged abouf 31 years. son of 5hri Koran Singh) RESPONDENTS PETITIONERS Sfafe of Chha‘l’fisgarh i’hrough- The, 1. Secre‘iary, Depar‘l’men‘l School Educa'i'ion, Manfralay, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan,’ Raipur'. DirecTor, STaTe EducaTion Research and Training Council, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) . Guru Ghasidas Universify, Bilaspur through i‘rs Regisfrar, Guru Ghasidas University, Koni, Bilaspur (C.6‘). Na‘lional Council for Teacher Educafion, A Stafufory Body of Governmenf of India, Wesfern Region Commi‘Hee, Through i'l's Regional Direcfor, Manas Bhavan, Shyamlo Hills, Bhopal (MP) Roopresh, S/o Badri Prasad Saini, aged abou‘r 22 years, R/o Thamawali, Posf Sakai, Tahsil Rajgarh, Disff: Alwar (Rajasfhan) S 1. WRIT PETITION [c] NO.5096/2007 1. kx’ \ RESPONDENTS Vs PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Singh, aged abou‘r Z4 years, R/o Jonjgir- Champa (CG). 38 years, R/o Bijawur' Chouhan, Tahsil Munduwar, Disff. Alwur (Rnjasfhun). . Sanjay Kumar Saini, S/o Daiaram Saini, aged abouf 23 years, R/o Bijawur Chouhan, Tnhsil Mundawar, DisH. Alwar (Rajasfhan). Sm'l'e of Chha'r'risgurh +hrough “the Secrefury, Depar‘rmenf of Schooi Educafion, Manfmlay, D.K.5. Bhuwan, Raipur (C6) .Direcior, Sfa‘re Educa'l'ion Research and Training Council, Shunkqr Nugur, Raipur (C.6.) . Guru 6hasidas University, Bilaspur ‘ihrough H's Regisfr'ar, 6ur'u Ghasidas Universi‘ry, Koni, Biiaspur (C.6.). Nafional Council for Teacher Educafion- A sfafu‘rory body of Government of India, Wes‘rern Region Commif‘ree, Through H's Regionai Direc‘ior, Manas Bhavan, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal (MP). . Konark Shiksha Mahavidyalay af Koksa Tah. Janjgir, Dish‘. Janjgir—Champa, ChhoTTisgarh, A Private Unaided College, represeni'ed by ifs Secrefary (Kamal Singh, aged abouf 31 year-s, son of 5hri Karan Singh). WRIT PETITION [cl NO.5095/2007 Vs Siafe of Chha‘l‘iisgarh fhraugh The Secretary, ‘Deparfmenf of School Educafion, D.K5. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) .The Dirscior. Sfa'l'e Educafion Research Ku. Madhubala, d/o Shri Geemm Singh, aged abou'r 21 years, R/o Nagala Bayana, Bhara'l’pur, DisH. Bhara'rpur' (Rajasfhan) .Vougesh Kumar, 5/0 Karan 5ingh Yadav, aged abouT 22 years, R/o Village Eopalpura, Tahsil Laxman Garh, Disf‘i'. Alwar (Rajasfhan). .Tejprakash Verma, 5/0 Shri Lalaram Verma, aged abouf 24 years, R/o 2/250 Kalakuan, Alwar, Disif. Alwar (Rajasfhan). .a 1‘ .Heman‘r Kumar Singh, ‘S/o Ashok Kumar . Vishambar Dayal, 5/0 Heiram, aged abou'r PETITIONERS 3 and Training Cauncil, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.6.) 3. Guru Ghasidus Universi‘ry, Bilaspur‘ fhrough ifs Regisfrar', Guru Ghasidas Universi‘ry, Koni Biluspur (C.6.). . Na‘tianal Educa'rion for Teacher Educa‘l’ion- A sfcfufory body of Governmenf of India, Wesfer'n Region Cummi'r’ree, Through ifs Regional Direcfor, Manas Bhavan, Shyamla Hills, Ehopul (MP). 5. Konurk Shiksha Mahavidynlay af Koksa Tah. Jnnjgir, DisH. Janjgir-Champa, Chhu‘Hisgarh, A Privai’e Uncided College, represented by ifs Secremry (Kama! Singh, aged abou'f 31 years, son of Shri Kcmn Singh). WRIT PETITION [c] NO.4057/ZOO7 1’ Yogesh Chand Mishra, 5/0 5hri Vinod Kumar, aged abou‘r 25 year-s, R/o 784, Seclcr-B, Balko Nagar, Korba, Dis+ric+ Korba (C.6.) 2. Renu Dubey, D/o Shri Triveni Shankar, aged abou'i 24 years, R/o Balko Nagar, Korbn, Dis‘h-icf Korba (C.6.) 3.Jyofna Dadekar, 5/0 5hri Sumegh 5. Dadekar, aged abou‘l’ 35 years, R/o, Korba, (06.) 4.Beena’ Kumar Yadav, 5/0 5hri Birbal Yadav, aged abouf 32 years, R/o Jhomar, Rajasfha. 5. Rabia Khan, 5/0 Shri Md. Rahjada, aged abouf 37 years, R/o. Janjgir—Champa (C6) 6. Ku. Tripfi Sharma, D/o Shri Anil Kumar, aged abouf 32 years, R/o Saragaon, DisfriC‘r Janjgir-Champa (C6) 7. Ku. Deepafi Tiwari, W/o Umashankar Tiwari, aged abou+ 24 years, R/o Janjgir Champa (C6) 8. Hansraj Singh, 5/0. 5hri Ramnarayan, aged abouf 34 years, R/o Janjgir-Champa (CG) 9. Ramesh Kumar, 5/0 Heh‘am, aged abau‘r 23 years, R/o. Jpdhpur, Rajasfhan. 10. Dharamraj Meena, 5/0 Shri Chhofu Lal Meena, aged abou‘r 29 years, R/o. Ajmer, Rajasfhan. 11.Ku. Sangee’ra, D/o Shri Rajendra, aged abouT 22 years, R/o Jhumanu, Rajaslbgnu ” , , 12. Ku. Sumeem, D/o 5hri Dar-i Singh, aged nbouf 24 years, R/o Jhumanu, Rajasfhan 13. Ku. Suman, D/o 5hri PurshoHum‘ aged abouf 26 years, R/o Jhumunu, Rujasfhun 14. Ku. Ani'ra, D/o Bhagimfhi Singh, aged ubou‘r 21 years, R/o Jhumanu, Rajasfhun. 15. Naresh Kumur, S/o Shri Subhash Chander, aged about Z4 years, R/o Jhumnnu, Rujasfhan. Vs BESPONDENTS 1. Guru Ghusidas Universify, fhrough Hs Regisfrar', Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. S‘ra're of ChhaHisgar-h fhr-ough Secre‘rm‘y, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Manfralay, Raipur (C6) 3. Direcfor, Sfai'e Educafion Research and Training Council, Shankar‘ Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Lal Bahadur Shashfri B.Ed. Coilege, Balod, DisTr‘icf Janjgir-Champa, (C6), & WRIT PETITION [cl NO.3326/Z007 PETITIONERS 1. Yogesh Kumar Shanna, S/o 5hri ' Ramkishore Sharma, aged abouf 24 years, R/o viliage Shree Rampura, Tehsil Lalso‘r, Disfricf‘Dausa (Rajasfhan) 2. Saroj Jain, D/o Rajmai Jain, aged abouf 29 year's, R/o. 17, Palm Mandir‘ Colony, Bajaria, Swai Madhopur (Rajaslhan) 3.Meenakshi Gupfa D/o 5hri Kanhaiyalal, aged abou‘r 31 years R/o Basan'r Bihar, Bangali Colony Jashpur (C 6) 4. Pradeep Kumar Pandey, 5/0 Ravina'rh Pandey, aged abouf 30 years, R/o Mahalpara, Posi’ Baikun'l'h, Disfric‘l Korea (C.G.) Vs RESPONDENTS 1. Guru Ghasidas Universii’y, fhrough H’s Regisfrar Bilaspur (C 6) 2. S‘l'afe of Chhafhsgarh fhrouah Secre‘l'ary, School Educafion Deparfmenf D K 5 Bhawan Manfralay, Raipur (C51) 3. College of Educa‘hon Meduka Pendra Road ' Bilaspur (C 6) r r i ' ’ ”’ Dhirendra Mishra. J. 1. The pefifioner in W.P. No.6351/06 claiming ifself f0 be cm ussociafion of privaie professional unaided coHeges of Chhaf'fisgarh and fhe pe‘iifioner in W.P. {c} No.3271/07, a privafe unaided ediiege, have filed the above pefifions againsf The respondenf-sfaie, Direc‘ior, Sfafe Educaiion Research and Training Council, Raipur (for brevi‘iy ‘SERTC') and universifies i.e. P'r. Ravi Shankar Shukla Universify, Raipur d: 6uru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur and prayed for direc‘iion fo respondenf- Direc‘ror +0 allow the privafe unaided BEd. colleges f0 give admissions in fhe vacanf sea‘is for B.Ed. course +0 “those sfudenfs who have qualified fhe Pre-B.Ed. examinafion and in case sufficienf numbers of sfudem‘s are nof available from amongsf qualified B.Ed. examinaiion candidafes, then 'ihey may be permiffed +0 admi'r sfudenfs according +0 ihe guidelines and norms of fhe Na'iional Council for Teacher Education (for brevi'ly 'NCTE'). The pefifioner college in W.P. [c] No.3271/07 has also prayed for allowing fhe sfudenis admiHed in fhe insfifufion +0 appear in The exominafion conducfedwbyijher”/W O R D E R (Passed on 3i] April, 2008) Mr. Suni! O+wani, Advocafe For the pefifioners in WP. Na. 6351/06, W.P. [c] No.3236/07 & WP [c] No.4o57/o7. Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advoca+e : For +he pefifioners in W.P.[c] No.5095/07 & 5096/07. Mr. Ambuj Agarwal, Advocai’c Far fhe pefifioner in W.P. [c] No.3271IO7. Mr. V.V.5. Murthy, Depufy Advoca‘i’e General. For The respondenT—Smte of Chha‘H‘isgarh. Mr. P.K. Verma, Senior Advocaie wifh Mr. Sumif Verma, Advacafe. For respondenT-Guru Ghusidas Universi‘iy, BilasEur. Mrs. Renu Kochar, Advoca‘ie For respondent Nafional Education for- Teacher Educafion Mr. Jiiendra Pali, Advocafe For respondenT-Pf. Ravi Shankar Shukla Universify, Raipur. responden‘f universify and direcf the respondenf universify f0 conducf exuminafion of fhe papers in which The sfudenfs of 'fhe pefifioner insh‘ru‘rion were res‘rmined from appearing. . Whereas, ofher wrif pefHians i.e. WP [c] Nos.4057/0?,l 3326/07, 5095/07 & 5096/07 have been filed by fhe sfudenfs, who are pursuing fheir s‘rudies in B.Ed. course in The various educa‘l’ional colleges of l’he Sfafe and who have been denied f; from appearing in ihe examinafion by fhe respondenf unive’rsHy ref concerned on The ground Tha‘l’ fhey have nol been admilfed as j per The guidelines and direcfions issued by fhe 5CERT gaffer '1 counseling fhey have also prayed for similar reliefs. . Briefly sfafed 1’he case of ihe pe‘rifioners is fhai fhe vrember i colleges of fhe pefifioner assuciafion are unaided colleges-f which are running B.Ed. course and fhey are recognized the NCTE and are also affiiiafed from The concedned universiTy. The STaTe for The purpose of admission in B.Ed. course enacTed The CG. B.Ed. Admission Rules, 2006 (for breviTy 'Rules, 2006’) (Annexure P-3) which exTends To The governmenT and privaTe colleges which run B.Ed. course. As per Rules, 2006 enTrance exaniinaTion was conducTed by The STaTe GovernmenT for The academic session 2006 and meriT IisT was prepared for The STudenTs who qualified in The enTrance examinaTion. Firsf counseling'was held on 16.9.2006: second phase of counseling was held on 29.9.2006 and Third phase of ‘ _ counseling was held from 16% To 18 +h OéTober, 2006. DespiTe? convening Three counseling availabie seaTs in various colleges r of The STaTe could noT be filled in and in These circumsTances fhe peTiTioners have filed This peTiTion for The above reliefs. .The peTiTioner in WP. (c) No.3271/2007, a privaTe unaided college, admiTTed fhe sTudenTs wiThouT counseling, submiTfed The lisT of admiffed sTudenTs wiTh fhe respondenT universiTy, who in Turn, accepTed The lisT of admiTTed sTudenTs in The college and also accepfed The examinaTion fee from The r i éollege and permiHed The sfudenfs To appear in the prucficcl examina'fion wifhou‘r any profesf or objecfion. Hewever, (1l! of a sudden fhe respandenf univarsi‘ry disallowed fhe sfudents, so admi‘Hed' 'ro appear in +he examinufion vide order- of Annexure P-1. 5. The ofher wrif pefifions are by fhe sfudenfs who have been udmiffed in various educaHonal colleges of the Smfe and They have been disallowed +0 appear in fhe excmina‘Hon by fhe responden‘r universi‘ry on fhe ground fhaf fheir admission is wifhouf holding appropriafe counseling by fhe SERTC fhough some of fhem were permi‘Hed lo appear in fhe pracfical examinafion conduc'fed by The responden‘r universify. 6. From perusal of The record if appears fho’f in WP. No.6351/06l member colleges of +he peli‘rioner associofion admiHed +he sfudenfs for B.Ed. course during pendency of Their represenTaTion daTed 26.10.2006, conTinued Their sTudies and This CourT vide order daTed 13.4.2007 permiTTed Them To appear in The examinaTion making iT clear ThaT appearing in The “4 said examinaTion would noT creaTe any righT in favour of The sTudenTs and The sTudenTs were also required To furnish underTaking To The effecT ThaT They would noT claim any righT on The ground ThaT They have appeared in The examinaTion. 7. The only quesTion for consideraTion in These wriT peTiTions is ThaT wheTher educaTional colleges of The STaTe can be permiTTed To admiT such sTudenTs in The B.Ed. course, who have noT parTicipaTed in The counseling conducTed afTer Pre-BEdi examinaTion of The academic year 2006. 8‘ Learned counsel for The peTiTioners vehemenTly argued ThaT The seaTs'of The educaTional colleges could noT be filled even afTer Third counseling, The peTiTioners submiTTed Their represenTaTion To The STaTe GovernmenT as also To The SCEIRTJ , , 8 for permi'rfing 1'hem 1'0 udmH such sfudenfs who have qualified Pre-B.Ed. examination and in case, number of such siudenis are no? sufficien‘r in fiil in fhe vacancy, f0 admit o'fher sfudenfs according 1’0 fhe guidelines and norms of the NCTE. However, when their representation was not decided by the concerned authorities for sufficiently long time‘ the member colleges admitted the students against the vacancies. Member colleges V ' of the petitioner association have been started by the private parties, they are not seeking any aid from the government, they are running the institution not for any gain, the object of the private unaided colleges is charitable in nature, however, in order to run their colleges they need reasonable revenue, which may be generated only by running the institution after filling its vacancies to its capacity. In these circumstances, adequate numbers of students who participated in the counseling conducted by the SCERT was not available and therefore, the unaided colleges have been left with no alternative but to fill in the vacancies of their colleges by such students who were qualified in Pre-BEd examination or who satisfy the norms fixed for in this regard by the NCTE. .Mr. Ambuj Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf bf petitioner-Konark Shiksha Mahavidhaylay, Koksa argued that the list of admitted students by the college was duly forwarded to the respondent University, who after accepting the list accepted the necessary admission fee as also examination fee for practical examination of the students to be conducted by the university. 10. Whereas, Mr. Adill Minhaj & Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the students argued that the students were admitted by the colleges in B.Ed. course because after counseling sufficient number of students to fill in the vacancies in the colleges were not available. List of students, so admitted, was forwarded to the respondent-university and i i $9 The universify accepted the Iisf and also uccep‘red The deposi‘r of examinafion fee for practice! exuminafion wifhouf any pro/fest. Therefore. on fhe principie of equity fhe pefifioners are enfiHed fo pursue fheir sfudies and fheir admission connof be canceled a'r fhe fag end of academic session, as the equify iies in favour of fhe pe‘ri‘rioners. Qeliance is placed on in fhe maffer of Sfafe of Maharasfhra Vs. Sanf Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shasfra Mahavidyaiaya 5i Ors‘. 11.0n fhe ofher hand, Mr. P.K. Verma, Sr. Advocate appearing for respondent-Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur and Mr. Pa’ii, Advocate appearing for respondent-Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukia University, Raipur vehementty opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioners-institutions admitted the students and the students obtained the admission in educational colleges after the period of counseling was over. It is not in dispute that the students were admitted without counseling in contravention of the binding rules framed in this regard by the Government of Chhattsigarh i.e. Rules, 2006. The students were permitted to appear in the practical x examination due to interim.order passed by this Court in W.P. No.6351/06 and from perusal of the interim order itself it would be clear that undertaking was required to be obtained from such students who were permitted to appear in the practical examination to the effect that they shall not claim any right on the ground that they were permitted to appear in the practical examination. From the averments in the petition it is evident that the institutions admitted the students without following the binding rules i.e. §ules, 2006 framed by the State Government in this regard and thus, the petitioners do not have any legal right to seek the relief which they are claiming through these petitions and the direction cannot be issued for permitting the colleges to admit students and also ”K. 12006 AIR scw 2048 @ permif *hem To appear- in fhe examina'rion in viola‘rion of :fhe sfafufor-y rules i.e. Rules, 2006. 12. I have heard learned counsel for fhe parfies. 13. The Sfafe 5overnmenf vide nofificafion dafed 20% April 2006 nofified fhe Rules, 2006. The said Ruies, 2006 extend {f0 all fhe governmenf and private coHeges of The STu‘re which run B‘Ed. course. Rule 3 dearly provides flout The admission fo B.Ed. course will be given only fhrough counseling conduc'fed on fhe basis of merif lisf of Pre-B.Ed. Exominofion and nof ofherwise. Rule 6 provides fhof o Pre-B.Ed. exominofion will be organized every year for admission 1’0 B.Ed. course by. an agency oppoinfed by fhe Sfofe Government Rule 7 envisages Tho? separafe merif lisf shall be prepared on The basis of marks obfained in Pre-B.Ed. examinafion for Scheduled Casfe, Scheduled Tribe and Ofher Backward Classes cafegory and unreserved cafegory. Rule 8 provides for counseling which envisages fhaf counseling would be done for giving admission in The ins'l'i‘l’ufions affer publicafion of fhe merif lisf and fhe procedure fo be adop'red during counseling has been elabora‘lely defailed. Rule‘ 9 provides Thaf when enough candidafes for admission of reserved classes are nof available, fhese seafs will be converfed info unreserved class seafs in fhe same category. Rule 10 provides for a sifuafion where enough candidafes of reserved class are nof available. If fur‘fhe‘r provides manner of admission when enough candidates of reserved cafegory are no? avaiiable. Rule 11 deals wifh a sifua‘rion where enough candidafes who are bonafide residenfs of Chhaffisgarh are nof available. 14. In exercise of ,powers conferred under Secfion 32 sub- secfion (2) of fhei‘Nafional Council for Teacher Educafion Acf, 1993 (73 of 19??) The NCTE framed regula‘l'ions called “Nafional Council 'For Teacher Educafion (Recognifion Norms 6i Procedure) (Amendmenf) Regulations, 2006 (for brevify be UH 11 ‘Regulu+ions, 2006'). The NCTE has fixed The norms and smndards for secnndary teacher educa‘rion pmgmmme Iending f9 Bacheior of Education degree (B.Ed. degree). Regula+ion 3 of Regulafions, 2006 deals wifh infake. eligibilify and admission procedure. Regula'rion 3.3 provides for admission procedure and prescribes fhaf admission shall be made on merii on fhe basis of marks obiained in +he qualifying examinaiion and/or in The enfronce examinai’ion or any other selec’rion process as per *he policy of the Siafe GovernmeM/Union Terriiory Adminisfra‘lion and ‘rhe Universi‘ly. 15. Thus; from perusal of the Regulations, 2006 it is evident that the admission to B.Ed. course is to be made strictly in accordance with the regulations notified by the NCTE as per policy of the State Government. 16. In the instant matters it is not in dispute that the students have been admitted in the various educational colleges of the State without following the procedure prescribed in Rules, 2006. Students were admitted in various colleges' de-hors of the above Rules even after writ petition was filed by the association and the same was pending before this Court. 17.In the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Renuka Singla and othersz the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus;~ The High Courts or the Supreme Court cannot be generous or liberal in issuing such directions which in substance amount to directing the authorities concerned to violate their own statutory rules and regulations, in respect of admissions of students. Technical education. including medical education. requires infrastructure to cope with the requirement of giving proper education to the students, who are admitted. Taking into consideration the infrastructure, equipment, staff, the‘ a (1994) 1 SCC 175 H% limif 0f ’rhe number of admissions is fixed eifher by +he Medical Council of India or Dzn‘ral Council of India. The High Court cannot disfurb That balance befween 'lhe capacify of fhe inslifufion and number- of admissions, on “compassionate ground". The High Cour? should be conscious of fhe facf 'rha‘r in This process ’rhey are affecfing fhe educafion of the sfudenfs who have already been admiHed, against fhe fixed seafs, after a very “rough compefifive examination. According fo us, fhere does nof appear fo be any jusfifica‘rion on ’rhe parf of fhe High Courf, in fhe present case, to direct admission of respondent 1 on “compassionate ground" and to issue o fiat to create an additional seat which amounts to a direction to violate Section 10-A and Section lO—B(3) of the Dentists Act." 18. In the matter of State of Maharostro Vs. Vikas Sohebrao Roundale and othersa while considering admission to B.Ed. course on direction of the High Court, it has been held that admission to B.Ed. Course in unrecognized educational institution on the basis of writ petition filed by the students for direction of High Court to State Government to permit them to appeor in the examination and to allocate the passed candidates in a recognized institution to prosecute their further courses was wrongly allowed being a direction to disobey the law. 19. In the matter of Sant Dnyaneshwar1 the State of Maharashtra had taken a policy decision not to grant 'no objection certificate’ to any institution for starting new‘B.Ed college for academic year 2005-06. The NCTE was apprised about the above decision and asked not to directly consider any application for grant of permission to start B.Ed college. 3 (1992) 4 SCC 435 13 However, *he‘ NCTE gramed permission +0 The pefifioner' insfifufion. The Sfufe challenged fhe said acfion by filing a wrif pefi‘rion con‘rending That fhe decision of +he NCTE is nof in consonance wi+h The iaw as fhe same has been one ignoring fhe policy decision of fhe Sfofe Government The Hon'ble Apex Cour'r dismissing fhe appeal of The STaTe of MaharasThra held ThaT NCTE is finol ouThoriTy To granT/refuse permission To sTorT new B.Ed. college and The SToTe E'over-nmenT connoT refuse permission on The policy consideroTion and in These circumsTonces The respondenT Colleges were permiTTed To admiT sTudenTs and iT was direcTed ThoT The order passed by The NCTE would operaTe from The nexT academic year. 20.As already poinTed l\‘' J.‘ ouT ThaT The peTiTioner insTiTuTion admiTTed such sTudenTs To B.Ed. course, who did noT porTicipaTe in The counseling, as They were nloT selecTed or did noT parTicipaTe in The enTrance TesT conducTed for admission To B.Ed. course, in conTravenTion of Rules 3, 6 (Si 8 of Rules, 2006 as also in conTravenTion of RegulaTion 3‘3 of RegulaTions 2006 framed by The NCTE. Since The sTudenTs were admiTTed in uTTer violaTion of The sTaTuTory provisions for admission in This regard, The insTiTuTion as also The sTudenTs being fully aware ThaT They could give admission Through counseling and noT oTherwise, even Then They admiTTed The sTudenTs in conTravenTion of sTaTuTory provisioihsi. and in such circumsTances no equiTy lies in favour of The peTiTioners and The peTiTioners cannoT be granTed The relief claimed in The peTiTion. 21. In The resulT, The peTiTions have no subsTance, The, same deserves To be dismissed and The same are accordingly dismissed. 22‘ No order as To cosTs. i Dhirendra Mishra Judge l Sd/-