Sita Devi Memorial Institute of Education and Technology vs State of Uttarakhand

B.S. Verma, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:

i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the press-note dated 7-1-2010(Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) issued by the Registrar, H.N.B. Garhwal University, Srinagar, Garhwal-respondent No. 2, so far as it relates to the applicability of reservation policy of State Government to the petitioner/institution.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to enforce the notification dated 5-5-1987 (as amended on 4-7-1997), issued by erstwhile State i.e. State of Uttar Pradesh or any other State Policy or State Act upon the petitioner/institution in future, alternatively the notification dated 5-5-1987 (as amended on 4-7-1997) be declared as not applicable to the petitioner-institution.

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to adopt the uniform Central Policies for all the colleges/institutions, affiliated to respondent University, whether situated in the campus or outside the campus.

iv. Pass any other and further orders, which this Hon�ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

v. Award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner.

Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioner is that the petitioner is an institution, which is being run, managed and controlled by the registered society, namely Sri Om Prakash and Smt. Sita Devi Memorial Society. The National Council for Teachers Education (for short N.C.T.E.) after satisfying itself as to the suitability of the institution, granted recognition to the petitioner-institution to run B.Ed. course of 100 seats in terms and conditions of Section 14(1) of National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 vide order dated 27-5-2005. The Chancellor of the respondent-University was pleased to grant formal affiliation to the petitioner for B.Ed. course under the provisions of Section 37(2) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and subsequently, the same was extended by the respondent No. 2-University from time to time. The University also issued no objection certificate to the petitioner for running B.Ed. course in the petitioner-institution.

The petitioner institution applied for further intake of 100 seats before the N.C.T.E., which after getting all formalities in the matter, granted intake of additional 100 seats of B.Ed. course to the petitioner/institution and vide letter dated 29-2-2008, the N.C.T.E. issued a letter of intent prior to recognition to the petitioner-institution. Subsequently, by order dated 11-3-2008, the N.C.T.E. granted additional intake of 100 seats of B.Ed. course. It was also mentioned in the order that the institution/society fulfils the requirements under the provisions of the N.C.T.E. Act, rules and relevant Regulations including the norms and standards for the Secondary Teacher Education programme such as instructional facilities, infrastructural facilities, library, accommodation, financial recourses, laboratory etc. for running the programme.

The State of Uttarakhand vide its Notification dated 26-10-2006 formulated "The Uttaranchal Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006" (Act No. 14 of 2006) and this Act was made applicable to unaided private professional educational institutions, affiliated to State Funded Universities, Councils, Boards or other bodies, established under law, excluding minority institutions. Subsequently, on 20-3-2009, the Central Universities Act 2009 was passed by the Parliament, which came into force on 15-1-2009 thereby the respondent-University along with two other universities was conferred the status of Central University.

On 23-6-2009, the respondent-University issued a Circular informing the petitioner institution that as the respondent-University has become the Central University and till the time the Ordinance is being prepared by the Central University, the process of admission and examination will be followed in accordance with the directions of the admission committee. The petitioner-institution challenged the constitutional validity of the Act No. 14 of 2006 before the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2009, which was admitted by the Apex Court and leave was granted on 16-7-2009.

On 7-1-2010 a press-note was issued by the respondent University inviting applications for B.Ed. entrance examination for the session 2009-2010 and in paragraph No. 3 thereof, the University discriminated the reservation policy between the campus colleges of the respondent University and self-financed private unaided institutions. The respondent-University issued guidelines with regard to reservations policy and admission of students in B.Ed. course in self-financed private unaided institutions as per Notification dated 5-5-1987 as amended on 4-7-1997.

The petitioner-institution moved an interlocutory application No. 2 of 2010 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2009 before the Apex Court praying for a direction to the respondent-University to adopt the central policy for its colleges or institutions, affiliated to it, but the same was withdrawn vide order dated 28-5-2010. The petitioner-institution was given liberty to file the same before the High Court. The writ petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2009 was disposed of as infructuous on the ground that the respondent-University has now become a Central University.

According to the petitioner, the respondent University issued a Notification regarding 2009 Admission Notice on the Internet and in paragraph No. 3 thereof, the respondent University has mentioned in Clause 3 of the general information that reservation and relaxation will be applicable as per Government of India U.G.C. Rules.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-University cannot adopt dual policy for reservation in admission to B.Ed. course one for the campus colleges of the Central University and the other for the other affiliated degree colleges/self financed B.Ed. institutions as indicated in the Press Note dated 7-1-2010 (Annexure No. 6 to the petition). According to the petitioner, the respondent-University cannot enforce the Notification dated 5-5-1987 as amended on 4-7-1997.

On behalf of the respondents, counter affidavit has been filed, besides a short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2.

In its short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, it is stated in paragraph No. 6 that the publication dated 7-1-2010 (alleged press note) was issued in accordance with Section 3 of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (Act No. 5 of 2007), which came into force on 3-1-2007 and simultaneously the University Grants Commission has approved such reservation. As such, the said reservation for the University Campus has been made applicable in accordance with the said Act No. 5 of 2007. In paragraph 7 it is stated that in respect of other affiliated colleges/institutions, which are not financed by the Central Government, the said Act is not applicable and with regard to those colleges who are affiliated but are not funded by the central government and the self-financed private institutions, the reservation policy of the State Government is applicable.

In the counter affidavit, the respondent No. 2 has stated that the recognition of the petitioner institution has been withdrawn by the N.C.T.E. in exercise of the powers u/s 17 of the N.C.T.E. Act. It is also stated that to regulate the admission and fixation of fees etc. Uttaranchal Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission & Fixation of Fee) Act 2006 is in force and Section 7 thereof empowers the State Government to fill up certain percentage of seats amongst other students who appeared in the common entrance test and domicile of the State of Uttarakhand. Section 9 deals with the reservation in admission as per the classification. It is also stated that proviso to Section 28(2) makes it clear that till the first ordinance to the said Central Act, the provision of the State Act shall be applicable hence the State Universities Act, U.P. State University Act 1973 and Uttaranchal Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission & Fixation of Fee) Act 2006 shall be applicable. It is also stated that in the Press Note dated 7-1-2010 there is no illegality regarding the reservation policy in the admission to B.Ed. and two separate reservation policy has to be applied, one in respect of campus college of the Central University and the other for private unaided and self-financed institutions.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is stated that the respondent-University has rightly taken a decision regarding reservation policy and the affiliated colleges shall be governed by the NCTE Regulations 2009 and as per the policy of the State Government. The respondent No. 1-State has annexed copy of Appendix-4 appended to the NCTE Regulations, 2009 as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the provisions of the Uttaranchal Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act 2006 would be applicable in respect of the admission and reservation policy of the petitioner-institution.

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner and therein the averments made in the writ petition have been reiterated.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the respondent-University has illegally discriminated the campus colleges of the University with other Government colleges as well as private unaided self financed colleges with regard to reservation policy for admission to the B.Ed. course for the Sessions 2009-2010.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the respondent University after having become Central University cannot regulate the admissions of private unaided self financed institution by imposing the State policy/State Act or any ordinance of 1987 passed under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act 1973.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has contended that the petitioner-institution shall be governed by the N.C.T.E. (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 regarding reservation and admission to the B.Ed. programme and that the petitioner-institution being self financed unaided teacher education institution, the reservation policy of the State Government shall be applicable and it does not make any difference that the petitioner-institution is affiliated to the Central University.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the N.C.T.E.-respondent No. 3 has argued that the private unaided educational institutions imparting Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) courses are governed by the Regulations formulated by the N.C.T.E. from time to time. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has urged that the petitioner-institution has to be governed as per Clause 3 of Appendix-4 of the N.C.T.E. (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009 so far as reservation and admission procedure to the B.Ed. course is concerned.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material placed before the Court.

At the outset, it may be mentioned that in the present writ petition, the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the proviso to Section 28(2) of the Central Universities Act in so far as it relates to applicability of the relevant provisions of the Statutes and the Ordinances made immediately before the commencement of the Central Universities Act under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act 1973. The petitioner-institution has also not challenged the Clause 3 of the N.C.T.E. (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2009 in so far as it relates to Intake, Eligibility and Admission Procedure to B.Ed. degree course. Moreover, the petitioner-institution itself has made a reference of the Uttaranchal Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act 2006 in paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition and alleged that the said Act applied to the unaided private professional educational institutions, affiliated to State funded Universities, etc. as provided therein. The petitioner has also not challenged the validity of either of the provisions made under that Act before this Court.

The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner-institution was granted recognition to run B.Ed. course of 100 seats in terms and conditions of Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act 1993 in the year 2005 and it is also admitted case that formal affiliation was given to it by the Chancellor of the Hemwati Nandan Baguguna Garhwal University (now Central University) for B.Ed. Course under the provisions of Section 37(2) of the U.P. State Universities Act 1973, which was being extended from time to time. No objection certificate had also been issued by the said University to the petitioner to run B.Ed. course. It is also admitted that the Uttaranchal Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act 2006 has come into force by notification dated 26-10-2006. It is not disputed that the petitioner-institution is a self financed educational institution and that it is neither maintained by the Central Government nor it is receiving aid from the Central Government, directly or indirectly. It is also not disputed that the respondent-University was earlier governed by the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and now the respondent-University is a Central University and is governed by the provisions of the Central Universities Act, 2009. It is also an undisputed fact that so far the respondent-University has not issued its First Ordinances.

The main controversy to be resolved in this writ petition is whether the petitioner-institution being affiliated to Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar (now a Central University) shall be governed by the Central Acts in the matters pertaining to reservation of seats and admission procedure or whether the reservation policy formulated by the State Government would be applicable to the petitioner-institution.

For a just decision of the case, a reference to the provisions of the relevant Acts and Regulations governing the admission and reservation policy to the B.Ed. courses is necessary.

Appendix-4 of the N.C.T.E. Regulations, 2009 deals with the norms and standards for Bachelor of Education programme leading to Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree. Clause 3 of the said Regulation reads as under:

Intake, Eligibility and Admission Procedure

(1) Intake.

There shall be a basic unit of one hundred students divided into two sections of fifty each for general sessions and not more than twenty five students per teacher for a school subject for methods courses and other practical activities of the programme to facilitate participatory teaching and learning.

(2) Eligibility

(a) Candidates with at least fifty percent marks either in the Bachelor�s Degree and/or in the Master�s degree or any other qualification equivalent thereto, are eligible for admission to the programme.

(b) The reservation in seats and relaxation in the qualifying marks in favour of the reserved categories shall be as per the rules of the concerned Government.

(3) Admission Procedure

Admission shall be made on merit on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and/or in the entrance examination or any other selection process as the policy of the State Government/U.T. Administration and the University.

(4) Fees

The institution shall charge only such fee as prescribed by the affiliating body/State Govt. concerned in accordance with provisions of National Council for Teacher Education (Guidelines for Regulations of tuition fees and other fees chargeable by unaided teacher education institutions) Regulations, 2002, as amended from time to time and shall not charge donations, capitation fee etc. from the students.

Section 2 of the Uttaranchal Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006 reads as under:

This Act applies to Unaided Private Professional Education Institutions affiliated to State Funded Universities, Councils, Board or other bodies establishes under Law, excluding minority institutions (Applicability).

Section 4(f) of the Central Universities Act reads as under:

4(f) all Colleges, Institutions, Schools or Faculties and Departments affiliated to, or admitted to the privileges of, or maintained by, Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Doctor Harisingh Gour Vishvidyalaya and Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University (shall) stand affiliated to, or admitted to the privileges of, or maintained by Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Doctor Harisingh Gour Vishvidyalaya and Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, respectively, established under this Act.

Section 28 of the Central Universities Act 2009 deals with power to make Ordinances, which reads as under:

Section 28(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, the Ordinances may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely: (a) the admission of students to the University and their enrolment as such;

(b) the courses of study to be laid down for all degrees, diplomas and certificates of the University;

(c) the medium of instruction and examination;

(d) the award of degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions, the qualifications for the same and the means to be taken relating to the granting and obtaining of the same;

(e) the fees to be charges for curses of study in the University and for admission to examinations, degrees and diplomas of the University.

(f) the conditions for award of fellowships, scholarships, studentships, medals and prizes.

(g) the conduct of examinations, including the terms of office and manner of appointment and the duties of examining bodies, examiners and moderators;

(h) the conditions of residence of the students of the University;

(i) the special arrangements, if any, which may be made for the residence and teaching of women students and the prescribing of special courses of studies for them;

(j) the establishment of Centres of Studies, Boards of Studies, Specialised Laboratories and other Committees;

(k) the manner of co-operation and collaboration with other Universities, institutions and other agencies including learned bodies or associations;

(l) the creation, composition and functions of any other body which is considered necessary for improving the academic life of the University;

(m) the institution of fellowships, scholarships, studentships, medals and prizes;

(n) the setting up of a machinery for redressal of grievances of employees and students; and

(o) all other matters which by this Act, or, the Statutes, are to be, or , may be provided for by the Ordinances.

(2) The first Ordinances shall be made by the Vice-Chancellor with the previous approval of the Executive Council and the Ordinances so made may also be amended, repealed or added to at any time by the Executive Council in the manner prescribed by the Statutes:

Provided that in the case of Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya and Doctor Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, and Hemvati Nandan Baguguna Garhwal University, till such time as the first Ordinances are not so made, in respect of the matters that are to be provided for by the Ordinances under this Act and the Statutes, the relevant provisions of the Statutes and the Ordinances made immediately before the commencement of this Act under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, and the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, respectively, shall be applicable in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the Statutes.

The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (Act No. 5 of 2007) has been enacted to provide for the reservation in admission of the students belonging to the Schedules Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes of citizens, to certain Central Educational Institutions established, maintained or aided by the Central Government, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2 of this Act deals with definitions and in Sub-section (d) of Section 2, the definition of "Central Educational Institution" has been given, which reads as under:

(d) "Central Educational Institution" means-

(i) a university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act;

(ii) an institution of national importance set up by an Act of Parliament;

(iii) an institution, declared as a deemed University u/s 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, and maintained by or receiving aid from the Central Government; (iv) an institution maintained by or receiving aid from the Central Government, whether directly or indirectly, and affiliated to an institution referred to in Clause (i) or Clause (ii), or a constituent unit of an institution referred to in Clause (iii);

(v) an educational institution set up by the Central Government under the Societies Registration Act, 1860;

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner institution is affiliated to the Central University, therefore, either the provisions of Uttaranchal Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006 or any other State Act would not be applicable to the petitioner-institution in view of the provisions of Section 4(f) of the Central Universities Act 2009.

So far as the affiliation of the petitioner-institution to the respondent-University, namely Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University as per provisions of Section 4(f) of the Central Universities Act, 2009 is concerned, there is no dispute on this point. The controversy involved in the present writ petition relates to applicability of the reservation policy in the admission to B.Ed. course. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that reservation policy as applicable to the respondent-University itself would be applicable to the petitioner-institution is not acceptable.

The petitioner-institution is not covered by the reservation policy as applicable to the Central Educational Institutions under the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (Act No. 5 of 2007), because Sub-clause (iv) of Clause (d) of Section 2 thereof, as referred to above, clearly makes it clear that "Central Education Institution" would include an institution maintained by or receiving aid from the Central Government, whether directly or indirectly, and affiliated to an institution referred to in Clause (i) or Clause (ii), or a constituent unit of an institution referred to in Clause (iii). The petitioner-institution is only affiliated to an institution referred to in Clause (i) of Sub-section 2(d) but it is neither maintained by nor receiving aid from the Central Government. It may be noted here that the requirement of Sub-clause (iv) of Sub-section (d) of Section 2 of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (Act No. 5 of 2007) for its applicability to an educational institution is that the institution should either be maintained by the Central Government or should have been receiving aid from the Central Government, whether directly or indirectly, and it must be affiliated to an institution referred to in Clause (i) or Clause (ii), or a constituent unit of an institution referred to in Clause (iii). The petitioner-institution is neither maintained by the Central Government nor it is receiving aid from the Central Government. The petitioner-institution is not covered by Clause (iv) of Sub-section (d) of Section 2 of the said Act. That being so, the provisions of Act No. 5 of 2007 are not attracted.

It is also pertinent to mention here that the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products and Another Vs. Union of India and Others, has laid down that where conjunction "and" has been used in a sentence, it should not be confused with the word "or". The entire sentence has to be read conjointly meaning thereby that if there are two conditions and they are mentioned by the use of conjunction "and", then both the conditions have to be satisfied.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner-institution further argued that the respondent-University is not empowered to regulate the admissions of private unaided self-financed institutions by imposing the State policy or any Ordinance of 1987 passed under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973.

This contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is also not convincing. A perusal of the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009 in paragraph 3(2) of Appendix-4 pertaining to norms and standards for Bachelor of Education programme leading to Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree makes it clear that the reservation in seats and relaxation in the qualifying marks in favour of the reserved categories shall be as per the rules of the concerned Government. In paragraph 3(3) pertaining to Admission Procedure it is mentioned that "admission shall be made on merit on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and/or in the entrance examination or any other selection process as per the policy of the State Government/U.T. Administration and the University." Not only this, in the earlier Regulations, which were formulated by the N.C.T.E., namely, N.C.T.E. (Guidelines for regulation of tuition fees and other fees chargeable by Unaided Teacher Education Institutions) Regulation 2002, the eligibility of the candidates and the procedure for admission was to be regulated as per the policy of the State Government and in terms of the N.C.T.E. Regulations, wherein in Clause 4(3) (i) and (ii) it was provided that least 50 per cent of the seats in every recognized institution shall be free seats and the remaining 50 per cent shall be the payment seats. Even thereafter N.C.T.E. (Recognition norms and procedure) Regulations 2005 came into force w.e.f. 13-1-2006 and as per Appendix-7 thereof, the earlier provisions were amended. Subsequently, N.C.T.E. (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2007 came into force thereby the earlier Regulations of 2005 were repealed. At the moment, N.C.T.E. Regulations 2009 formulated under the N.C.T.E. Act 1993 are applicable to the petitioner-institution, as the recognition was granted to the peitioner-institution under the N.C.T.E. Act.

In view of the aforesaid provisions contained in the N.C.T.E. (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that the University is not empowered to direct that the reservation policy of the State Government shall be applicable in the admission process.

It finds place to mention here that the provisions of Ordinances and Statutes issued under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 were applicable to the petitioner-institution, which was earlier affiliated to the respondent-university until the commencement of Uttaranchal Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006 and after commencement of that Act the reservation policy formulated therein has been made applicable in the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand). Since the N.C.T.E. Regulations 2009 makes it clear that the reservation in seats and relaxation in the qualifying marks in favour of the reserved categories shall be as per the rules of the concerned Government, therefore, until the first Ordinance of the Central University comes into existence, the reservation policy of the State Government would be applicable to the petitioner-institution. Moreover, the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, appearing for the petitioner-institution in the latter part of his argument submitted that so far as challenge to applicability of reservation policy of the State Government to the petitioner-institution is concerned, he does not press the first relief sought in this writ petition.

In view of the discussion above, I accordingly hold that the reservation policy of the Central Government shall not be applicable to the petitioner-institution, rather the reservation policy of the State Government as has been provided by the N.C.T.E. Regulations 2009 shall apply to the petitioner-institution. The impugned press-note (Annexure-6 to the petition) does not call for any interference by this Court so far as the reservation policy of the State Government has been made applicable to other affiliated degree colleges/self financed B.Ed. institutions. The question is answered accordingly.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has lastly submitted that the respondent-University has no power to conduct counselling in respect of the petitioner-institution. According the learned Counsel, after the respondent-University had conducted the entrance examination and prepared a merit list, rest of the admission process has to be dealt with by the petitioner-institution.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has vehemently urged that in paragraph 3(3) pertaining to Admission Procedure of the N.C.T.E. Regulations, 2009, it is mentioned that "admission shall be made on merit on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and/or in the entrance examination or any other selection process as per the policy of the State Government/U.T. Administration and the University." and in the instant case, the entrance examination to B.Ed. courses has already been held by the respondent-University, therefore, no other selection process as per the policy of the State Government and the University is further required. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has placed reliance the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products and Another Vs. Union of India and Others, wherein the Apex Court has held that where any sentence is separated by the conjunction "and" then both the parts of the sentence shall be read conjointly and requirement of earlier part as well as of the latter part must be fulfilled.

In the present case, the examination body is the respondent-University, who had already conducted the entrance examination and the State Government has not framed any procedure for holding entrance examination or any other selection process for admission to B.Ed. degree course, hence it is obvious that the formalities with regard to entrance examination has already been completed by the respondent-University. Now, the remaining process regarding admission shall have to be done by the petitioner-institution as per N.C.T.E. Regulations 2009, referred to above.

In view of the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent-University is not entitled to conduct the counselling in respect of the petitioner-institution as well as all the private unaided/self financed colleges and State aided colleges affiliated to the respondent-University. The respondent-University shall handover/published the cut off merit list prepared on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying examination to the petitioner-institution as well as all the private unaided/self financed colleges and State aided colleges affiliated to the respondent-University, which shall deal with the further admission process in accordance with the N.C.T.E. Regulations 2009 read with N.C.T.E. (Guidelines for regulation of tuition fees and other fees chargeable by unaided teacher education institutions) Regulations, 2002 and the NCTE Act, 1993, within a period of ten days from today, as has been provided in Clause 2 of the letter dated 23-6-2009 sent by the Respondent-University to all the degree colleges/institutions of the respondent-university regarding admission to education session 2009-2010 in the affiliated degree colleges (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). So far as reservation in admission to B.Ed. degree course in the private unaided/self financed colleges and State aided colleges affiliated to the respondent-University other than University campus/constituent colleges is concerned, they shall be governed by the reservation policy of the State Government as has been held in paragraph 37 above. Accordingly, the respondent-University would be at liberty to proceed further in the matter of counselling and admission to B.Ed. degree course in respect of the campus/constituent colleges of the University expeditiously.

With the above observations, the writ petition is partly allowed.

The interim order dated 15-6-2010 is vacated.