The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of recognition entitles institutions to affiliation and the right to admit students. The State is obligated to conduct admissions or permit private institutions to do so in the absence of regulatory measures.

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

1. This petition will dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 9270, 9348, 9626, 9899, 9951 & 10253 of 2007 as common question of law of right to affiliation after grant of recognition and right to admit students in absence of any regulation or policy of the State, are involved.

Facts :

2 In C.W.P. No. 9270 of 2007, case set out by the petitioner is that the college was granted recognition for the Diploma in Education (D.Ed.), two years course with annual intake of 50 seats from the academic year 1998-99 vide order dated 25.2.1999, Annexure P-1, of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under Section 14 (3)(a) of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act). The NCTE allowed conditional recognition for additional intake of 50 students for the D.Ed. course vide letter dated 27.8.2006, Annexure P-2 read with order dated 19.9.2006, Annexure P-5. The petitioner informed the Haryana State Council of Education Research and Training (for short, the HSCERT), respondent No. 2, about the additional intake vide letter dated 26.2.2007, Annexure P-6. Still, the respondent No. 3, Directorate of School Education in the prospectus for admission, issued in March 2007 for the academic session 2006-08, mentioned the figure of 50 students against the petitioner-college. Counselling was held in May 2007. The petitioner-college was entitled to admit 50 additional students for the academic session 2007-09 and no admissions having been done for additional intake seats, had no objection to give admission to those who were in the waiting list, for admission after having passed the entrance test conducted by the State of Haryana in pursuance of prospectus issued in March, 2007, Annexure P-7. Prayer was made that the prospectus be directed to be corrected and 50 additional seats available for the petitioner-college be filled up.

3. In the reply filed, stand taken by the Board of School Education, Haryana is that it is acting on the instructions of Director, Elementary Education, Haryana, Chandigarh. No reply has been filed by the HSCERT or by the NCTE. However, as reflected in the order of this Court dated 14.6.2007, statement was made on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 (State of Haryana and the HSCERT) that counselling for admission to D.Ed. course had already been accomplished between 15.5.2007 to 26.5.2007 and the Government had decided not to arrange any further counselling for the course. In the reply filed by the State of Haryana, it has been stated that as per the prospectus, intake of the petitioner-institute was shown to be 50 seats and admission against the said 50 seats were made and the State decided not to arrange any further counselling since admissions for additional intake of 50 seats beyond the date of counselling could not be made during the session 2006-08. Admissions against the additional seats will be made during the next session as and when it takes place.

4. In C.W.P. 9348 of 2007, case of the petitioner is that it is running B.Ed. College and is affiliated to the Kurukshetra University. It applied for recognition for D.Ed. course, for which, recognition was granted vide letter dated 3.6.2007, Annexure P-11 read with letter dated 9.6.2007, Annexure P-13 with intake of 50 students. It applied for inclusion in the list of eligible colleges for D.Ed. course in the prospectus which had already been issued, but the petitioner was not included in the eligibility for admitting the students.

5. Contention raised in the petition is that this Court vide order dated 22.11.2005 in C.W.P. No. 17964 of 2005 (Bhawani Shankar Charitable Trust (Regd.) & Anr. v. State of Haryana) had given a direction to provisionally consider the institute, in that case, for inclusion in the process of counselling, while adjourning the case for filing the written statement. It is further pointed out that vide order dated 16.5.2006, another petition was admitted and interim order continued.

6. In the reply filed on behalf of