(Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the first respondent in G.O.(2D) No.59 dated 14.11.2006, quash the same and further direct the second respondent to approve the staff list of the petitioner-Institution submitted on 10.11.2006.)

Common Order:

By an order issued in G.O. (2D) No.59, School Education Department, dated 14.11.2006, the Government of Tamil Nadu prescribed 20.11.2006 as the last date for approval of the list of Faculty Members of the newly recognised Self-financing Private Teacher Training Institutes by the Directorate of Teacher Education Research and Training. It also prescribed 30.11.2006 as the last date for the admission of students for the Diploma in Teacher Education Course for the academic year 2006-2007. Aggrieved by the fixation of such cut off dates by the Government, the Private unaided Teacher Training Institutes came up with the present batch of writ petitions, seeking to quash the said Government Order.

2. After the writ petitions were admitted, the Government issued another Order in G.O.(2D) No.7, School Education Department, dated 9.2.2007, extending the time limit for submission of the list of Faculty Members for approval, to 9.3.2007. Therefore, the challenge to one portion of the impugned Government Order G.O.(2D) No.59, School Education Department, dated 14.11.2006, does not survive for adjudication any longer and the only issue that survives in the present batch of writ petitions is the validity of the cut off date prescribed for admission of students for the academic year 2006-2007 viz., 30.11.2006.

3. Heard Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. G. Davadoss, Mr. S. Kamadevan, Mr. T. Meikandan, Mr. P. Srinivas, Mr. G. Arul Murugan, Mr. M. Hidayathulla Khan, Mr. Chandrasekar, Mr. K. Soundararajan, Mr. R. Suresh Kumar, Mr. Kandavadivel Doraisami, Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy and Mr.K.Selvaraj for petitioners in all these writ petitions, Mr.M.Sekar, learned Special Government Pleader (Education), Mr. Pa. Kadirvel, learned Government Advocate (Education) and Mr.S.Udayakumar, learned Standing Counsel for National Council for Teacher Education.

4. The relevant portion of the impugned Government Order G.O. (2D) No.59, School Education Department, dated 14.11.2006, reads as follows:

"In the letter read above the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training has stated that teacher Education institutes should provide Instruction to candidates for a period of 220 days as per the calendar of activities mentioned in the Curriculum for Diploma in Teacher Education and has requested to fix the cut off date for admission to Diploma in Teacher Education for the academic year 2006-2007 in the larger interest of student community and for administrative purpose.

2. The Government after careful examination of the proposal of the DTERT, direct that 30.11.2006 shall be the last date for admission to Diploma in Teacher Education for the academic year 2006-2007. The Government also direct the DTERT to issue the following instructions to the Private Teacher Training Institutes:

(i) to instruct all private TTs not to admit students for DTE Course beyond 30.11.2006 for the academic year 2006-2007 for administrative reasons and for ensuring quality in Teacher Education in Tamil Nadu.

(ii) even if seats are remaining unfilled that cannot be a ground for making mid-session admissions.

(iii) there shall be no admissions after the cut off date (i.e.) 30.11.2006 even if seats are unfilled.

(iv) in case of any deviation by the concerned Institution, suitable action will be taken against them."

5. Paragraph-3 of the impugned Government Order is not extracted above, since it prescribes 20.11.2006 as the last date for approval of the list of Faculty Members for the academic year 2006-2007 and the same has now been modified to 9.3.2007 under G.O.(2D) No.7, School Education Department, dated 9.2.2007.

6. As seen from the preamble contained in para-1 of the impugned Government Order, the fixation of cut off date became necessary so as to ensure that the students undergoing the Diploma Courses, are in a position to have 220 days of instructions, as per the calendar of activities mentioned in the Curriculum. There cannot be a quarrel about the proposition that every course must have a Curriculum and a calendar of activities for a prescribed number of Instructional Days. The impugned Government Order has been issued with the professed object of fulfilling such a requirement and hence the same has to be tested on the touchstone of nexus between the order and the object sought to be achieved by the order.

7. Under Regulation 8 of the NCTE Regulations, 2002, the Norms and Standards for various Teacher Education Courses were prescribed in Appendices 3 to 14. Appendix 5 related to the Norms and Standards for Elementary Teacher Education Programme. Clause 4 of the said Appendix 5 prescribed that there shall be at least 150 teaching days in a year, exclusive of the period of admission, examination etc., and an internship in teaching at least for 30 days in nearby Elementary Schools. In other words, a curriculum of 180 working days (150 teaching days plus 30 days of internship) was prescribed under Appendix-5.

8. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 32(2) of the NCTE Act, 1993, the National Council issued the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2006, revising the Norms and Standards for Teacher Education Courses leading to Certificate in Education (C.Ed.) and Diploma in Education (D.Ed.). The said Amended Regulations were published in the Gazette on 11.12.2006. By the said amended regulations, the Norms and Standards prescribed under Appendices 3, 4 and 5 under the Regulations of the year 2002, were replaced by Appendix 1 and 2 to the Amended Regulations. Appendix 2 under the said Amended Regulations of the year 2006 prescribed the "Norms and Standards for Elementary Teacher Education Programme leading to Diploma in Education (D.Ed.)". In paragraph-1.0 of the Appendix 2 Norms, containing the Preamble, it is made clear in para-1.1.4 that the Elementary Teacher Education Programme carries different nomenclature and the duration of training as well as entry qualifications differ across the States. Thus, it is made clear by the Preamble itself that the State Government has been given a leverage both in respect of the duration of training and in respect of the entry qualifications, in so far as Diploma in Teacher Education Course is concerned.

9. Paragraph-2 of the Appendix 2 Norms and Standards for D.Ed. Programme under the Amended Regulations of the year 2006, prescribes the duration and working days of the Programme as follows:

"2.0 Duration and working days

(a) The elementary teacher education programme shall be of duration of two academic years.

(b) There shall be at least 200 working days each year exclusive of the period of examination and admission, out of which at least 40 days shall be for practice teaching/skill development in nearby elementary schools.

(c) A working day shall be of a minimum of 6 hours in a six day week, during which physical presence in the institution of all the teachers and student teachers is necessary to ensure their availability for individual advice, guidance, dialogues and consultation as and when needed."

Thus, it is clear from the words "at least" used in para 2(b), that the prescription of 200 working days under the above paragraph, is only a minimum prescription and hence, the prescription of 220 days by the State Government is perfectly in tune with the Amended Regulations and the Norms and Standards.

10. Since NCTE has prescribed 200 working days with 40 days of internship, the State Government cannot reduce the same, but the State Government has a right to prescribe higher standards. In Preeti Srivastava (Dr.) vs. State of M.P. (1999 (7) SCC 120 [LQ/SC/1999/702] ), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court recognised the right of the State to prescribe more than the minimum standards prescribed by Regulatory Bodies on the ground that prescription of higher standards does not adversely impinge upon the standards prescribed by the appropriate Authority and that such prescription would be consistent with promoting higher standards in higher educational courses. In State of Tamil Nadu vs. S.V. Bratheep (2004 (4) SCC 513 [LQ/SC/2004/355] ), the Supreme Court upheld the right of the State Government to prescribe higher standards than those prescribed by AICTE. The Apex Court made it clear that "excellence in higher education is always insisted upon by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court" and that "prescription of standards in education is always accepted to be an appropriate exercise of power by the bodies recognising the Colleges or granting affiliation, like AICTE or University". Therefore, the prescription of 220 Instructional Days by the State Government for the Diploma in Teacher Education Course cannot be questioned and the same has not, in fact, been challenged by the Institutions.

11. Once it is found that the State Government had rightly fixed 220 Instructional Days for the first year of a Diploma in Teacher Education Course and that the Institutions have not chosen to challenge the same, the Government has a duty cast upon them to prescribe a cut off date for the admission of the students, as otherwise the Course cannot be commenced and completed within a time frame so as to provide 220 Instructional Days.

12. As a matter of fact, the challenge of the petitioners to the impugned order is not very much to the right of the Government to fix a cut off date for admission, as it is to the date 30.11.2006. In other words, the petitioners want some other date later than 30.11.2006 to be the cut off date for admission of students for the year 2006-2007. After the issue of G.O.(2D) No.7, School Education Department, dated 9.2.2007, extending the cut off date for approval of Faculty Members to 9.3.2007, the petitioners want a similar extension for the cut off date for admission of students.

13. Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel contended that as per the terms and conditions contained in the orders of recognition issued by NCTE, the Institutions are entitled to "commence the Course" after the approval of the staff list and that therefore, the prescription of 19.3.2007 as the last date for admission of students, would satisfy the requirements of NCTE especially when the last date for approval of Faculty Members is fixed as 9.3.2007.

14. The learned Senior Counsel has drawn inspiration for such a contention, from the impugned Government Order itself which prescribed 20.11.2006 and 30.11.2006 as the dates for approval of Faculty Members and admission of students respectively and contended that such an interval of at least 10 days should be maintained between the last date for approval of Faculty Members and last date for admission of students.

15. If the said contention is accepted and the last date for admission of students is extended either to 9.3.2007 (to coincide with the last date for approval of Faculty Members) or to 19.3.2007 (as contended by the learned Senior Counsel), the concept of academic year itself would get distorted. The impugned Government Order has been issued in respect of the academic year 2006-2007. In common parlance, the said academic year is understood to mean the period from June 2006 to May 2007. But it appears that the Directorate of Teacher Education Research and Training has been conducting the public examination for the Diploma Courses in Teacher Education, only in November-December every year. It was reported that the examinations for the academic year 2005-2006 were conducted only in December 2006. Thus, the respondents have actually perverted the concept of an academic year itself. Therefore, all the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that if the examinations for the academic year 2006-2007 are going to be conducted only in December 2007, there is no harm in extending the last date for admission of students to 9.3.2007.

16. However, in my considered view, such extension would eventually destroy the concept of academic year. If the last date for admission of students is extended to 9.3.2007 (to coincide with the last date for approval of Faculty Members) or to a later date, it would, in the first instance, compel the respondents to have the examinations only in December 2007, so as to enable the Institutions to have adequate number of Instructional Days. Eventually, it will lead to postponement of examinations for the subsequent academic years.

17. Moreover, the extension of the last date to 9.3.2007 or to any subsequent date, would reduce the total number of days available (upto the date of examinations in December) in the calendar year 2007, to just about 270 days (9 months from March to December 2007, if exams are presumed to take place in December). Within this period of 270 days, an Institution will not be in a position to complete 220 Instructional Days, on account of the intervention of about 72 Saturdays and Sundays apart from several Public Holidays and Festival Holidays. Moreover, the students undergoing Diploma in Teacher Training Courses, are supposed to undergo an internship training which includes "Commission Work, Teaching and Observation Practicals" in nearby Schools for 40 days as per para-2 of Appendix-2 Norms and Standards of Amended Regulations, 2006. This internship, can be undergone only when the regular schools function. The academic year for the State Board Schools have not undergone a change and hence the Institutions can make their students of Diploma in Teacher Education Courses undergo this internship only when those nearby schools are functioning. If the academic year adopted by the Teacher Training Institutes do not coincide with (or at least closely follow) the academic year of the schools, the internship may turn out to be a farce. Therefore, the extension of the last date for admission of students will not be in the interest, either of the student community or of the maintenance of higher standards, though it may be financially advantageous to the Institutions.

18. The Supreme Court has time and again come down heavily upon mid-session or mid-stream admissions in professional Colleges. Dealing with belated admissions in Medical Colleges, the Supreme Court observed in Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh (2002 (7) SCC 258 [LQ/SC/2002/940 ;] ">(2002 (7) SCC 258 [LQ/SC/2002/940 ;] [LQ/SC/2002/940 ;] ) as follows:

"When the time of admission to Medical Courses arrives, immediately comes to mind Shakespeares Othello, where it was written "Chaos is come again". The inevitable result is that considerable time is lost by candidates chasing vires instead of virus".

The same analogy would hold good even for the present case. It is seen from hundreds of cases filed by Private Unaided Teacher Training Institutes in this Court, that the National Council for Teacher Education have been issuing orders of recognition, throughout the year, completely oblivious of the existence of a concept called "Academic Year". Till about a few months ago, NCTE was issuing orders of recognition, specifying the academic year from which recognition was granted. This gave rise to a lot of writ petitions filed by Institutions seeking affiliation from the Universities or the Directorate of Teacher Education, for the same academic year, irrespective of the number of term days or instructional days left over for the Institutions to complete the Course during the academic year. Realising this unhealthy trend, the NCTE has modified the format of the orders of recognition, in the past couple of months, to merely say that the order of recognition will be prospective. In other words, the orders of recognition issued by NCTE these days, does not indicate the academic year in respect of which it is issued. But this has not resolved the issue, on account of the fact that NCTE keeps on issuing orders of recognition throughout the year. The Institutions take advantage of this and seek to admit students throughout the year, unmindful of the number of term days available, so that they can turn out batches and batches of students and recover their investments. It therefore became necessary for the Government, which is the affiliating body in respect of the Diploma Courses, to prescribe a cut off date for admission of students, so that the students complete the required number of term days to be able to participate in the examinations. Therefore, the prescription of 30.11.2006 as the last date for admission of students, cannot be found fault with.

19. Emphasising the need for adherence to a time schedule in the matter of admission to higher educational courses, the Supreme Court observed in State of U.P. vs. Dr. Anupam Gupta (1993 Suppl. (I) SCC 594) as follows:

"14. Considering from this point of view, to maintain excellence the courses have to be commenced on schedule and be completed within the schedule, so that the students would have full opportunity to study full course to reach their excellence and come at par excellence. Admission in the midstream would disturb the courses and also work as a handicap to the candidates themselves to achieve excellence."

20. The need for fixing a time schedule both for the commencement of the Course and for the admission of students, was again reiterated by the Supreme Court in Madhu Singhs case, in the concluding paragraph, with the following directions:-

"23. There is, however, a necessity for specifically providing the time schedule for the course and fixing the period during which admissions can take place, making it clear that no admission can be granted after the scheduled date, which essentially should be the date for commencement of the course.

In conclusion

(i) there is no scope for admitting students midstream as that would be against the very spirit of statutes governing medical education;

(ii) even if seats are unfilled that cannot be a ground for making mid-session admissions;

(iii) there cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with permitted seats of the subsequent year;

(iv) MCI shall ensure that the examining bodies fix a time schedule specifying the duration of this course, the date of commencement of the course and the last date for admission;

(v) different modalities for admission can be worked out and necessary steps like holding of examination if prescribed, counselling and the like have to be completed within the specified time;

(vi) no variation of the schedule so far as admissions are concerned shall be allowed;

(vii) in case of any deviation by the institution concerned, action as prescribed shall be taken by MCI."

Therefore, it is inevitable for any Teacher Training Institute to have a time schedule for the commencement of the Course and for the admission of students. Since the Teacher Training Institutes do not have self-discipline, it has become necessary for the "Examining Body" like the University or the State Government to prescribe a time schedule for commencement of the Course and for the admission of students. Neither the NCTE Act, 1993 nor the Regulations issued by NCTE prescribes a time schedule for the commencement of the Course and the admission of students. This has been left by the NCTE to the "Examining Body" and hence, the Government was perfectly justified in prescribing a last date for admission of students, under G.O. (2D) No.59, School Education Department, dated 14.11.2006.

21. As a matter of fact, the role of the State Government also appears to have been enlarged by the Amended Regulations of 2006 even in respect of the staff members to be appointed. Under the Regulations of the year 2002, the qualifications of the Teaching Staff such as Principal and Lecturer alone were prescribed under Clause 5 of Appendix 5. The qualifications for other Academic Staff and the appointment of Administrative and other Support Staff, were left to be decided as per the Norms fixed by the State Government, under Clause 5(d) and Clause 6 of Appendix 5 Norms and Standards of the Regulations of the year 2002. But the said Appendix 5 Norms and Standards under the Regulations of the year 2002, has been replaced by Appendix 2 Norms and Standards under the Amended Regulations of the year 2006. Para-4.0 of the Appendix 2 Norms and Standards (under Amended Regulations of the year 2006) prescribes the number of Teaching Staff, Technical Support Staff and Administrative Staff to be employed by the Institution and the qualifications prescribed for each of those posts. Para-4.2 of Appendix 2 Norms prescribes the terms and conditions of service of such staff and the same reads as follows:-

"4.2 Terms and conditions of service

(a) The appointment shall be made on the basis of recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted as per the policy of the Central/concerned State Government/Board whichever is applicable.

(b) All appointments are to be made on full-time and regular basis excepting those specified as part-time.

(c) Appointment of part-time instructors and other supporting staff shall be made as per norms of the concerned Government.

(d) The academic and other staff of the institutions shall be paid such salary as may be prescribed by the concerned Government by account payee cheque or as per advice into the bank account of the employee, specially opened for the purpose.

(e) The management of the institution shall discharge the statutory duties relating to pension, gratuity, provident fund, etc., for its employees.

(f) The age of superannuation of staff shall be determined by the policy of concerned Government."

Thus, the role of the State Government has been enlarged in so far as the issue of appointment of staff members is concerned. But unfortunately, without applying their mind to the Amended Regulations of the year 2006, the State Government had buckled under pressure from the Institutions, to extend the last date for approval of Faculty Members from 20.11.2006 to 9.3.2007 under G.O.(2D) No.7, School Education Department, dated 9.2.2007. It is interesting to note that the Government filed common counter-affidavits in one set of cases in this batch, forcefully pleading the validity of G.O.(2D) No.59, School Education Department, dated 14.11.2006. In para-17 of the common counter-affidavit, the State Government pleaded that it has "moral and ethical responsibility to ensure quality of education at all levels and that the quality in preparation of Elementary Teachers cannot be compromised to suit the unethical stand taken by Private TTIs to carry out mid-course admissions". Interestingly, these common counter-affidavits were sworn to by the Joint Secretary to Government on 7.2.2007. But within two days, G.O.(2D) No.7, School Education Department, dated 9.2.2007 was issued, diluting the impugned Government Order and swallowing all the tall claims relating to their "noble intentions" expressed in the counter-affidavits. Therefore, I do not know whether the State has a moral right to accuse the Private TTIs of being "unethical", without getting exposed. If the index finger is stretched out by the State Government against the Private Teacher Training Institutes, for being unethical, the remaining three fingers point at the State Government itself. By the time G.O.(2D) No.7, School Education Department, dated 9.2.2007 was issued, the Amended Regulations of the year 2006 had been notified in the Gazette on 11.12.2006. Therefore, the State Government ought to have taken note of the same and acted with more caution and circumspection, in the light of the increase in the importance of the role assigned to the State Government under the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2006. Now the damage caused by G.O.(2D) No.7, School Education Department, dated 9.2.2007, is beyond redemption and hence, it is important that at least the cut off date in respect of admission of students, is not diluted.

22. The contention of Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the extension of the cut off date for approval of staff members without a corresponding extension of the cut off date for admission of students, is meaningless and that it becomes otiose, appears to be correct. The foundation for the said contention of the learned Senior Counsel is a Clause contained in the order of recognition issued by NCTE itself. But unfortunately, the said Clause making it obligatory for the Institutions to commence the Course only after the grant of approval for the list of staff members, is not found uniformly in all the orders of recognition issued to all Institutions. I have examined the orders of recognition filed by the petitioners in these batch of cases and I found that the said Clause making it obligatory for the Institutions to admit students only after the grant of approval of Faculty Members by the State Government (or the University concerned) is not incorporated uniformly in all orders of recognition. On the contrary, some of the orders of recognition proceed as though the NCTE had examined the list of Faculty Members and found the same to be in order. This has actually led to a misunderstanding of the whole issue.

23. But the Amendment issued by the NCTE under the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2005 published in the Government Gazette on 13.1.2006, contains certain provisions relating to the issue of staff approval and the date from which an Institution becomes eligible to admit students. Regulation 7 (11), (12) and 8(10) of the said Regulations of the year 2005, read as follows:-

"7(11) The institution concerned shall be informed of the decision for grant of recognition or permission subject to appointment of qualified faculty members before the commencement of the academic session.

7(12) The institution concerned, after appointing the requisite faculty/staff, shall put the information on its official website and also formally inform the Regional Committee concerned. The Regional Committee concerned shall then issue a formal unconditional recognition order.

8(10) An institution shall make admission only after it obtains unconditional letter of recognition from the Regional Committee concerned, and affiliation from the examining body."

24. From the aforesaid National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2005, which came into effect from 13.1.2006, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Institutions are entitled to admit students only after the following steps are fulfilled viz.,:-

(a) Obtaining an order of recognition.

(b) Appointing qualified Faculty Members, putting the information on the Official Website and formally informing the Regional Committee concerned.

(c) Getting an unconditional order of recognition.

(d) Getting affiliation from the Examining Body.

The Examining Body viz., the University concerned or the State Government (depending upon whether the Course is an Undergraduate/Post-Graduate Course or a Diploma/Certificate Course), can grant affiliation only after the list of staff members is approved. After the publication of the Amended Regulations of the year 2006 in respect of the Norms and Standards, with effect from 11.12.2006, the role of the Examining Body has been enlarged, in the matter of examining and granting approval to the staff members appointed by the Institution, under para-4.2 of Appendix 2 Norms extracted in para-21 above.

25. But in view of the fact that National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2005 were notified on 13.1.2006 and the Amended Regulations of the year 2006 containing Appendix 2 Norms and Standards were notified on 11.12.2006, the enforcement of the same for the current academic year 2006-2007, would only lead to confusion especially since the order impugned in the writ petition was issued on 14.11.2006 (G.O.(2D) No.59) and amended on 9.2.2007 (G.O.(2D) No.7). Therefore, the State Government will have to evolve a policy, after taking note of the Amended Regulations notified on 13.1.2006 and 11.12.2006.

26. As a matter of fact, the State Government had filed a Memo on 15.3.2007, seeking appropriate directions from this Court for achieving a planned and coordinated development of Teacher Education System. In the said Memo, the State Government had listed out things to be avoided and followed by NCTE. In para-6 of the said Memo filed by the State Government, the main grievances ventilated by the Government against NCTE are (1) Grant of recognition and approval for additional intake throughout the year, even after Single Window Counselling, (2) Grant of recognition with retrospective effect and grant of conditional recognition, and (3) Failure to take action against Institutes violating the Norms and Standards. The State Government has also pointed out the various activities of the Teacher Training Institutes, which destroy the quality of education. But there is no use trying to tame the Private Institutes. Therefore, even while upholding the validity of the impugned Government Order, I am of the considered view that certain directions are to be issued, as prayed for by the State Government in the Memo filed by them on 15.3.2007.

27. Therefore, in fine, all the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

(a) The impugned Government Order G.O.(2D) No.59, School Education Department, dated 14.11.2006, prescribing 30.11.2006 as the last date for admission of students for the academic year 2006-2007, is upheld as perfectly valid and the same is binding on all Teacher Training Institutes.

(b) Since the last date for approval of Faculty Members had been extended by the State Government under G.O.(2D) No.7, School Education Department, dated 9.2.2007 from 20.11.2006 to 9.3.2007, the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training shall approve the admission of students in all Private TTIs, if their admission had taken place before 30.11.2006 and the list of Faculty Members had been submitted before 9.3.2007. This concession is only in respect of the current academic year 2006-2007, since the Amended Regulations, 2005 were notified on 13.1.2006 and the revised Appendix-2 Norms and Standards under Amended Regulations 2006 were notified only on 11.12.2006.

(c) Within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the State Government shall issue a compendium of guidelines, prescribing the calendar of activities for the Teacher Training Institutes, indicating (i) the date of commencement of the Course, (ii) the cut off date for approval of staff members, (iii) the cut off date for admission of students, (iv) the cut off date for holding Single Window Counselling, for sponsoring candidates under the Government Quota, (v) the method of recruitment of Teaching Faculty, administrative and technical support staff, (vi) the calendar of activities for the academic year including the days of instruction and days of internship, (vii) the schools in which the internship could be undergone, (viii) the Schedule for the Examination as well as the Commission Work and Observation Work and (ix) such other matter as required for streamlining the system of Teacher Education in the State. The said compendium of guidelines, shall be issued by the Government within two months and it shall take effect from the academic year 2007-2008 onwards.

(d) In the compendium of guidelines, the State Government shall make it clear that the question of grant of affiliation or approval of admission of students and appointment of Faculty Members, would be considered for every academic year, only in respect of those Institutes which get orders of recognition upto a particular date, say 31st July or 31st August of a year. The date so prescribed shall be in tune with the calendar of activities prepared by the State Government, taking note of para-2 of Appendix 2 Norms and Standards prescribed under Amended Regulations of the year 2006. The Institutes which receive orders of recognition beyond the cut off date so prescribed by the State Government, would be entitled to have affiliation and approval of admission of students and appointment of staff members only for the following academic year.

(e) Since NCTE has now modified the format of the orders of recognition and the academic year is not mentioned in the orders of recognition, the Institutes will have a right (from the academic year 2007-2008 onwards) to admit students only after the grant of approval of staff members and the grant of affiliation by the State Government, in view of Regulation No.7(11), 7(12) and 8(10) of National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2005 published in the Government Gazette on 13.1.2006.

(f) Since one of the objections taken in this batch of writ petitions is that the impugned Government Order was not published in the Government Gazette, the respondents are directed to publish the compendium of guidelines in the Government Gazette, so that such an objection could be avoided.

28. With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.