RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 1. 5. 2000 passed by the Regional Director, National Council for Teachers education (hereinafter referred to as N. C. T. E.) Annexure-3 to the writ petition and the order dated 30. 6. 2000 passed by the Member Secretary, National Council for Teachers Education (N. C. T. E.) Annexure-10 to the writ petition, rejecting the appeal by confirming the order of the northern Regional Committee (N. C. T. E.), Jaipur dated 1. 5. 2000 refusing recognition of the institution. ( 3 ) THE admitted facts as called out from the record are that the petitioner is the Chairman of K. K. Ideal Education Society, which was registered on 3. 8. 1998 under the provisions of the societies Registration Act, 1860. It is alleged that for the purpose of imparting B. Ed. education to the students, the Society moved an application on 20. 12. 1998 with all requisite informations seeking recognition/approval for a college having facility of 240 seats. The petitioners was granted N. O. C. by the State Government as well as by the concerned University, which was duly intimated to respondent No. 2 on 30. 5. 1999. In response to the application dated 20. 12. 1998 submitted by the petitioner, an inspection was made by the Committee of the respondents and the petitioner was informed on 27. 7. 1999 that petitioners institution does not fulfil as many as nine conditions as per norms and conditions for purpose of eligibility for grant of recognition of the institute. ( 4 ) THE shortcomings pointed out by the respondents at the time of inspection are said to have been removed by the petitioner and approval for the institute was not granted under the provisions of N. C. T. E. and the regulations framed thereunder instead of granting recognition/ approval, a surprise inspection was again conducted by the N. C. T. E. Committee on 25. 9. 1999 without any prior intimation to the petitioner. The said Committee found five more shortcomings regarding Assistant Staff, basic requirements for teaching and financial arrangements. These shortcomings were also intimated to the petitioner by letter dated 21. 10. 1999. 9. 1999 without any prior intimation to the petitioner. The said Committee found five more shortcomings regarding Assistant Staff, basic requirements for teaching and financial arrangements. These shortcomings were also intimated to the petitioner by letter dated 21. 10. 1999. The counsel for the petitioner also submits that the aforesaid shortcomings had also been removed, but instead of granting recognition/approval, respondent No. 1 vide order dated 1. 5. 2000 refused the recognition. ( 5 ) THE attention of the Court has also been drawn to the fact that the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 18 of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993. During the pendency of appeal, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6856 of 1999 before Delhi High Court, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 22. 5. 2000 directing respondent No. 1 to decide the appeal on or before 3. 6. 2000. ( 6 ) THE contention of the petitioner in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the writ petition is that two institutions, namely, Baba Bheem Rao Ambedkar Shikshan Mahavidyalaya, Agra and Research education Institution, NOIDA were being run in a rented building. Those institution granted permission/approval for session 1999-2000 by respondent No. 2, although they have lesser infrastructure than that of the petitioner. It is submitted that the reply of averments made in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the writ petition have not been replied by the respondents and have been admitted by them in paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit, as such this Court may direct the respondents for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner. ( 7 ) IT is apparent from the record that the petitioner was not fulfilling the norms and conditions for recognition of his private institute. He has no legal or fundamental right to get recognition without fulfilling the eligibility criteria and the conditions of recognition. There were shortcomings as was found in one of the inspections as well as in the surprise inspection made by the N. C. T. E. Committee. It appears from the inspections that the petitioner does not have any adequate infrastructure for running for B. Ed. course in its proposed Teachers Education institution. The contention of the petitioner that he had removed all the discrepancies pointed out in the inspections, is his mere contention. It appears from the inspections that the petitioner does not have any adequate infrastructure for running for B. Ed. course in its proposed Teachers Education institution. The contention of the petitioner that he had removed all the discrepancies pointed out in the inspections, is his mere contention. The competent authority has to certify before granting recognition that the petitioners have required eligibility expertise and infrastructure to ensure that the students are provided atleast minimum standard and norms for the course. In what circumstances the other two institutions have been granted recognition cannot be decided merely on the basis of the affidavit without any material to come to the conclusion of discrimination. The petitioner has failed to make out the case of discrimination. There is no material whatsoever in the record except the bald allegations made in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the writ petition. This court cannot issue any direction to N. C. T. E. to grant or not to grant recognition to a particular institution. The petitioner has to approach competent authority i. e. , N. C. T. E. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. .