( 1 ) NATIONAL council for teacher education, statutory body of the government of india, is before us aggrieved by the declaration of regulation 5 (e) and (f) of the national council for teacher education (application for recognition, the manner for submission, determination of conditions for recognition of institution and permission to start new courses of training) regulations, 1995 (for short 'regulation') as ultra vires by the learned single judge of this court in Dr. Sri jachani rashtreeya seva peetha, Bangalore v state of Karnataka and others, on the following factual matrix:

( 2 ) THE appellant, the national council for teacher education (for short the 'council') is a statutory body having taken its birth under the Provisions of the national council for teacher Education Act of 1993 (for short the 'act' ). The said council is established for teacher education with a view of achieving planned and coordinated development of teacher education system throughout the country. The statute casts a duty on the council to take all steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and coordinated development of teachers education under Section 12 of the act. Section 14 of the act provides for recognition of teacher education institution. The council is statutorily empowered to grant recognition to an institution in terms of the act.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT-INSTITUTION made an application seeking for no objection certificate from the state government which came to be refused by the state government by an order dated 12-8-1996 Annexure-E to the writ petition on the ground that in terms of the policy of the state government the request for starting new educational institution cannot be granted. The respondent-institution also made an application for recognition under Section 14 of the act but the same was rejected by the council by an endorsement dated 1-8-1997 for want of no objection certificate in terms of the regulation 5 (b) of the regulations.

( 4 ) THE respondent in these circumstances filed a petition in writ petition No. 1879 of 1998 seeking for a relief for quashing the endorsement at Annexure-E , dated 12/13-8-1996 and also seeking for an order to strike down the regulation 5 (e) and (f) of regulations requiring no objection certificate as unconstitutional and ab initio void.

( 5 ) SIMILAR petitions were filed on the same/similar facts and circumstances. All the petitions were heard together and by a detailed order the learned judge after noticing the object of the Act, state law on teacher education, powers and functions of state government and validity of clauses (e) and (f) of regulation 5 passed an order declaring that the legislative field pertaining to teacher education being already covered by the central legislations, the state government has ceased to have any power under article 162 of the Constitution of India to take any policy decision with regard to the said subject. Clauses (e) and (f) of regulation 5 of the regulations were declared as ultra vires of the power of the national council and are struck down as such. The learned judge ruled that consequently the decision taken by the regional committee or the appellate authority for refusing recognition on the ground that non-grant of no objection certificate by the state government stands vitiated in law. Writ petitions were thus allowed with a direction to the appellant council to consider/reconsider the application filed by the institutions for grant of recognition without insisting for obtaining the no objection certificate from the state government.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the striking down of the clauses (e) and (f) of regulation 5 and aggrieved by the directions of the learned judge this appeal is filed by the appellant before us.

( 7 ) SRI D. V. Shylendra Kumar, Learned senior standing counsel for the central government addressed us in support of various contentions raised in the appeal. He argues that reading as a whole, the preamble to the Act, the ob