Judgment :- The petitioner seeks a writ of man­damus to direct the second respondent to ap­prove the list of staff furnished by the peti­tioner dated 26.9.2005 and consequently in­clude the petitioner institution relating to the increased intake, for the counselling under the single window system; being conducted by the 2nd respondent for the academic year 2005­ 06 pursuant to the order of the 1st respondent in letter No.F.SRONCTE/TN/A1/04/2005-06/ 2463 dated 25.8.2005. 2. Mr. S. Udayakumar, learned Central Govern­ment Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the, first respondent and Mr.R. Vijayakumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice for second and third respondents. 3. The petitioner institution was granted recognition for Elementary Teacher Training Course by the competent authority, viz., the first respondent for an intake of 50 students. One of the conditions on which the petitioner institution granted recognition on 9.9.2004 for intake of students was that it should get the staff list approved by the State Government. Accordingly the petitioner submitted the list of staff which was approved by the 2nd respon­dent on 3 3.2005 and the students were admit­ted by counselling held by the single window system and under the Management quota. 50 students who were admitted for the academic year 2004-2005 have also written their 1st year examination on 23.11.2005. For the academic year 2005-2006, the petitioner had applied for increase in intake of 50 students before the 1st respondent who in turn by order dated 25.8.2005 granted approval. The petitioner institution had already obtained the approval of 1 + 5 faculty members appointed 6 more faculty members fully qualified and submitted it to the 2nd respondent on 26.9.2005 through the District Institute of Education and Training, Vadalur, Cuddalore District who had forwarded to the second respondent for approval of the staff. Unless it is approved, counselling which was started on 19.9.2005 for the academic year 2005-2006 will not be conducted with regard to increased intake. Contending that the second respondent has not approved the staff list, the petitioner has come forward with this petition. 4. Unless it is approved, counselling which was started on 19.9.2005 for the academic year 2005-2006 will not be conducted with regard to increased intake. Contending that the second respondent has not approved the staff list, the petitioner has come forward with this petition. 4. It could be seen from the order of the NCTE dated 25.8.2005 that it has granted recognition to the petitioner institution for Elementary (D.T.Ed.) Course for the academic session 2005-2006 subject to fulfillment of certain requirements, the first one of which is as follows: “(1) the institution will ensure that twelve exclusive faculty members (Principal and eleven teachers) duly approved by the DTERT are in position for an intake of 100 students and a report to this effect shall be, sent to, the Southern Regional Committee immediately and in any case before commencement of admissions for the course." But, admittedly, the petitioner, even though has got the recognition for the year 2005-2006, has submitted the list of faculty members to the second respondent through the District Institute of Education and Training, Vadalur, Cuddalore District on 26.9.2005. The Princi­pal of the said Institute forwarded it to the second respondent only on 19.10.2005.” 5. It is clear that the recognition was granted to the petitioner Institute for the year 2005­ 2006 subject to the approval of faculty mem­bers. Further, the petitioner has submitted the list of faculty members to the second respon­dent only on 26.9.2005 for approval. There­ fore, the petitioner cannot seek, as a matter of right, a direction to the second respondent to sponsor students for the academic year 2005­ 2006. The course offered by the petitioner is Diploma in Teacher Education-and the students, after completion of the said course, are going to teach elementary school pupils. Unless the students are having sufficient knowledge and training, the standard of education in elemen­tary level, which is a basic one, will get spoiled. There cannot be any compromise in the mat­ter of education. As the interest of elementary school children is involved, in the matter of sponsoring students for the counselling under the single window system to the petitioner in­stitution, the Court should not be a fait ac­compli and the Court should be slow in interfering with such matters. There cannot be any compromise in the mat­ter of education. As the interest of elementary school children is involved, in the matter of sponsoring students for the counselling under the single window system to the petitioner in­stitution, the Court should not be a fait ac­compli and the Court should be slow in interfering with such matters. The mere grant of recognition will not confer any right on the petitioner to seek direction to sponsor students for the academic year 2005-2006 on the basis of recognition when it has submitted the list of faculty members only on 26.9.2005, as the dis­pensing with the procedure will ultimately spoil the standard of education. 6. In this view of the matter, suffice it to direct the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioner Institute relating to the increased intake, for the counselling under the single win­dow system for D.T.Ed Course for the aca­demic year 2006-2007, on approval of the faculty members and in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of according. No Costs. Connected W.P.M.P. is closed.