JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The challenge made in this writ petition is in respect of withdrawal of the recognition of the Petitioner college imparting B.Ed. course of study. The appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the order passed withdrawing the recognition of the college also yielded no result in favour of the Petitioner as a consequence of which the Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 2. The Petitioner college under the name and style of "The College of Education", Morigaon, in the district of Morigaon (Assam) was established in the year 1994. The college has been imparting training in teacher education leading to Bachelor of Education Degree (B.Ed.). Since 1995, the students of the college have been appearing in the B.Ed. Examination conducted by the Gauhati University and many of its students have obtained B.Ed. degree. 3. The sponsoring body of the college was granted permission to start the B.Ed. College for the session 1994-95 by the Executive Council of the Gauhati University vide its resolution adopted on 17.9.1994. Such permission was accorded in the subjects of studies as mentioned in the resolution and with the following conditions: 1. To take urgent steps for construction of the college building in its own land; 2. Appointment of required number of qualified teachers as per provision of G.U. Ordinance; 3. Immediate improvement of the library set up by procuring sufficient number of standard books and journals in each subject. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid permission accorded by the Gauhati University, students were admitted to the college and they appeared in the B.Ed. examination for the session 1994-95 through Nagaon B.Ed. College. In 1997, the Executive Council of the University by its resolution adopted on 19.7.1997 granted temporary affiliation to the college upto B.Ed. standard for the session 1996-97 subject to fulfilment of the following conditions. 1. Acquiring of the recognition from the NCTE, Bhubaneswar; 2. Submission of land allotment letter from the Revenue Department, Government of Assam within 1 (one) month. 3. Purchase of adequate No. of Text-books and reference books in the subjects; 4. Completion of the incomplete building; 5. Improvement of the examination results. 5. After the aforesaid initial temporary affiliation granted to the college, same was again renewed vide resolutions dated 20.8.1999 and 5.2.2002 pertaining to the sessions 1998-99 and 1999-2000 respectively. 3. Purchase of adequate No. of Text-books and reference books in the subjects; 4. Completion of the incomplete building; 5. Improvement of the examination results. 5. After the aforesaid initial temporary affiliation granted to the college, same was again renewed vide resolutions dated 20.8.1999 and 5.2.2002 pertaining to the sessions 1998-99 and 1999-2000 respectively. Apart from the condition of improvement of various infrastructures of the college, a further condition was imposed for immediate appointment of full-time qualified Librarian and for replacement of the unqualified teachers by qualified teachers. 6. The National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 was enacted by the Parliament to provide for establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) for achieving planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standard in the teacher education system and for matter connected therewith. The Act came into force with effect from 10.7.1995. The functions of the NCTE have been specified in Section 12 of the Act which include guidelines and norms regarding minimum qualifications, course contents, curriculum, staffing pattern and qualifications, institutional facilities, criteria, standard of examination fees, research etc. Section 14 of the Act provides for granting of recognition by NCTE to the institutions offering training in teacher education and the manner in which such recognition is to be granted or refused. 7. The NCTE granted recognition to the Petitioner college for the years 1998-99; 1999-2000; 2000-01 and 2001-02 vide orders dated 6.3.1998, 25.11.1998, 12.1.2000 and 5.2.2001 respectively subject to compliance of various conditions stipulated therein. Thereafter the Eastern Regional Committee, NCTE vide its letter dated 7.5.2004 (Annexure-IV) addressed to the Principal of the Petitioner college intimated as to how the college had been granted recognition for the B.Ed. course of one year duration for the academic session, 2001-2002 with an intake of 60 students and hence there was no need to issue another recognition order for the year 2003-2004. It was intimated that the recognition would be valid for the academic session 2003-2004 with an approved intake of 60 students. It was also intimated that the recognition of the Petitioner college had been withdrawn vide order dated 6.2.2004, a copy of which was enclosed with the communication. It was intimated that the recognition would be valid for the academic session 2003-2004 with an approved intake of 60 students. It was also intimated that the recognition of the Petitioner college had been withdrawn vide order dated 6.2.2004, a copy of which was enclosed with the communication. It is this order, which has been impugned in the writ petition and the same reads as follows: National Council for Teacher Education Eastern Regional Committee To be published in Gazettee of India Part-II, Section 4 ERC-41 (ER.6.6)/2004/497 February 6, 2004 Order Whereas college of Teacher Education, Morigaon Town, Ward No. 1, P.O. and District Morigaon Assam, Pin-78205 was granted recognition for B.Ed. Course of one year duration by ERC, NCTE from the academic session 2001-2002 with an annual intake of 60 (Sixty) students under Section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993 vide order No. ERC/7-16/2001/285 dated 5.2.2001. And whereas the institution was inspected on 20.8.2002 under Section 13 of NCTE Act by the visiting team constituted by the Council and the visiting team had since submitted its report. And Whereas on 29.10.2003, the Regional Committee after considering the report of the visiting team as well as other relevant materials furnished by the institution had opened that it does not fulfill the requirements and issued a notice on 11.11.2003 thereby giving an opportunity to the said institution to make a written representation in this behalf. And whereas the institution had submitted representation to ERC, NCTE, which was received on 19.1.2004. The said representation of the institution as well as documents and materials submitted were duly considered by the Regional Committee on 22.1.2004, which came to the conclusion that recognition granted to the said institution be withdrawn under Section 17(1)of the NCTE Act for the following reasons: (i) The institution do not have requisite qualified teachers as per NCTE norms. (ii) The education technology lab does not have computer and associated peripherals including CD-ROM on education. (iv) Library is not maintained as per NCTE norms. (iv) The salary paid to the teaching staff is not as per the scale prescribed by the Central/State/UGC. (v) Details of audited accounts and records of income and expenditure were not shown to the inspection team. (vi) The institution has not submitted PAR (2002-2003) and other supporting documents as asked vide our letter dt. 5.9.2003. (iv) The salary paid to the teaching staff is not as per the scale prescribed by the Central/State/UGC. (v) Details of audited accounts and records of income and expenditure were not shown to the inspection team. (vi) The institution has not submitted PAR (2002-2003) and other supporting documents as asked vide our letter dt. 5.9.2003. (vii) The institution has not adhered to the revised norms prescribed by NCTE dt. 13th November, 2002. Now therefore, it is hereby ordered that recognition of B.Ed. course in college of Education, Morigaon own Ward No. 1, P.O. and Dist. Morigaon, Assam. In-782105 is hereby withdrawn. Also ordered that a copy of this order be published in the official gazettee. By order Regional Director 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Petitioner college preferred an appeal, dated 18.2.2004 before the Member Secretary, NCTE. In the appeal the visit of the inspection team of NCTE to the college on 20.8.2002 was mentioned. It was also mentioned as to how the inspection team found certain deficiencies and asked the college authority to send written representation. The appeal further mentioned about sending the written representation with the undertaking of fulfilling the deficiencies very soon. In the meantime, the steps taken by the college authority, towards removing the deficiencies stated to be communicated to the NCTE were also mentioned in the appeal. In this regard the relevant portion of the appeal is reproduced below: The list of deficiencies fulfilled by me may be stated as below: As regards item No. 1 we have appointed qualified teachers through procedures in due time as per instruction (copy enclosed) As regards item No. 2 we purchased one Computer set and sent necessary vouchers (copy enclosed) As regards item No. 3 purchased 7 No. of Encyclopedia for college library and documents sent (copy enclosed). Ordered Rs. 15,000/- books recently (Vouchers of both computer and Encyclopedia were sent) (vouchers of both Computer and Encyclopedia were sent at a time). As regards item No. 4 salary paid through individual checks from Dec./04, document sent to ERC, NCTE (copy enclosed). Sr. Lecturer are given State Govt, scale. The newly appointed lectures are given Rs. 3000/- per month as they are under probationary period. It will be increased later on. As regards item No. 4 salary paid through individual checks from Dec./04, document sent to ERC, NCTE (copy enclosed). Sr. Lecturer are given State Govt, scale. The newly appointed lectures are given Rs. 3000/- per month as they are under probationary period. It will be increased later on. As regards item No. 5 the internal audit has been already done and it is sent to CA (it is the only condition which is not fulfilled yet but will be produced soon). As regards item No. 6 please refer to the letter No. F.No.-ERC/09-30/PAR/2002-30/232 dated 21 Jan/04 indicated the last ate of submission of PAR by 20 Feb/04. The same has been sent by speed post on 14 Feb/04. Under this facts and circumstances it is revealed that ERC, NCTE issued such an drastic order on the basis of the "written representation letter" and did not take into consideration the documents submitted by the college time to time. It may kindly be noted that except item No. 6 (Audit Report) all other deficiencies are fulfilled by us. I therefore, fervently request you to review and reconsider the case cordially and withdraw the derecognition order imposed on us. 9. The aforesaid appeal preferred by the Petitioner college was rejected confirming the aforesaid order dated 6.2.2004. The order reads as follows: F.No. 89.62/2004 Appeal National Council for Teacher Education Indira Gandhi Indoor Stadium IP Estate, New Delhi 21st August, 2004 ORDER Whereas The Eastern regional Committee, NCTE Bhubaneswar (ERC) in its Order No. ERC/7-41 (ER.6.6)/2004/497 dated 6th February, 2004 withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. Course in College of Teachers Education, Morigaon Town, Assam on the grounds that (i) The institution does not have requisite teachers as per NCTE norms, (ii) the education technology lad does not have computer and associated peripherals including CD-ROM on education, (iii) Library is not maintained as per NCTE norms (iv) the salary paid to the teaching staff is not as per the scale prescribed by the Central/State/UGC, (v) details of audited accounts and records of income and expenditure were not shown to the inspection team, (vi) the institution has not submitted PAR (2002-2003) and other supporting documents as asked for in the letter dt. 5.9.2003, (vii) the institution has not adhered to the revised norms prescribed by the NCTE dated. 13th Nov., 2002. 5.9.2003, (vii) the institution has not adhered to the revised norms prescribed by the NCTE dated. 13th Nov., 2002. And whereas, the corresponding, college of teacher Education Morigaon, Assam (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant), preferred an appeal dated the 27th February, 2004 to the National Council for Teacher Education. New Delhi (hereinafter referred to the National Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said order. And whereas Mrs. Doli Bura Gohain, Principal, College of Education Morigaon, Assam presented the case of the appellate institution on the 24th May, 2004. In the appeal as well as during personal presentation the institution was not able to submit documentary proof in regard to the removal of the deficiencies pointed out by Regional Committee while withdrawing recognition. And whereas the Council had asked the Appellant to submit certain documents such as (i) copy of salary statement for the last month, (ii) copy of acquaintance Roll, (iii) last pay of Library accession register and (iv) the list of teachers selected/appointed by Guwahati University for examining the matter further. And whereas the Appellant submitted the documents on 03.06.2004 which were examined in the special appeal committee meeting on 27th July, 2004. The documents furnished by the institution in regard to salary statement and Library accession register, copy of acquaintance roll were found to be in accordance with the NCTE norms. As regards the document relating to qualification of teachers, it was noted that the same was not in accordance with academic record with M.Ed./M.A. (Education) with 55% marks. As per the details of teachers in position it was found that out of 7 lecturers 2 does not fulfill the criteria of 55% marks in M.A. (Education) and 5 lectures are not having the M.Ed. qualification. And whereas the council after careful consideration of all aspect of the matter has come to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be rejected on the ground that the lecturers appointed do not fulfill the required qualifications as per NCTE norms and the order of Eastern regional Committee, Bhubaneswar confirmed. And now therefore, the Council hereby confirms the order appealed against. (Sd/- (V.C. Tewari) Member Secretary. 10. When the matter rested thus, the Gauhati University by Annexure-IX notification dated 27.8.2004 issued on the subject of B.Ed. Programme, 2004-2005 intimated all concerned about allowing to admit students to the B.Ed. And now therefore, the Council hereby confirms the order appealed against. (Sd/- (V.C. Tewari) Member Secretary. 10. When the matter rested thus, the Gauhati University by Annexure-IX notification dated 27.8.2004 issued on the subject of B.Ed. Programme, 2004-2005 intimated all concerned about allowing to admit students to the B.Ed. course for the session 2004-2005 only subject to the conditions indicated in the notification itself. The conditions imposed are as follows: 1. All the B.Ed. college having NCTE recognition and Gauhati University affiliation are allowed to admit students for the session 2004-2005 with the intake capacity as specified by NCTE. 2. Affiliated B.Ed. college of Gauhati University without NCTE recognition will have to obtain NCTE recognition before admitting students. 3. B.Ed. colleges having Gauhati University [permission shall be treated as eligible only to apply for NCTE recognition. Admission in such colleges shall be subject to their obtaining NCTE recognition and the intake capacity will be as specified by the NCTE. The Gauhati University shall be as specified by the NCTE. The Gauhati University shall in no way be responsible for any admission they make without NCTE recognition. 4. The intake of students from Universities other than those of the State of Assam must not exceed 10 (ten percent) of actual intake. 5. Admission without fine shall be given upto 15.9.2004 and must be competed by 25.9.2004 with fine. 6. Classes will start from 1st October, 2004. 7. The statement of all the admitted students alongwith the photocopy of NCTE recognition letter for the sessions 2004-2005, the admission forms, marksheets and all other necessary documents attested by the principal be submitted to the Registrar, within 29.10.2004. 8. The college which were found deficient in fulfilment of conditions as pointed out at the time of inspection of the college must have to fulfill the same on or before January, 2005. Sd/- M.C. Sarma Registrar Gauhati University. 11. According to the Petitioner the impugned action on the part of the NCTE is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as the Petitioner college having been established and continued strictly in accordance with the guidelines formulated by the Gauhati University and it having fulfilled all the requirements as laid down by the NCTE, the impugned orders could not have been issued towards de-recognition of the Petitioner college. 12. 12. The Respondent No. 1, Gauhati University has filed its counter affidavit while the NCTE has furnished written instruction through its learned Counsel Mr. G.P. Bhowmik. In the counter affidavit filed by the University, it has been contended that since the Petitioner college did not fulfill the conditions laid down in the NCTE Act during the relevant period, the impugned orders had to be issued by the NCTE. As regards the permission to the college to admit students, it is the stand of the University that in absence of NCTE recognition, no such permission could be accorded to the college. As regards the emphasis of the Petitioner on the G.U. ordinance and fulfillment of the conditions laid down therein, the University has stated that while the Gauhati University Act, 1947 under which the ordinance was issued is a creature of the State legislature, the NCTE Act, 1993 is the creature of the Central Government and in case of any conflict between the two, the later will always prevail. Referring of provisions of Section 14 of the NCTE Act, it has been stated in the affidavit that once the recognition of an institution is withdrawn, such institution shall have to discontinue the course of training in teacher education and consequently, the affiliation granted by the University shall have to be cancelled. Thus, it is the stand of the University that it has no hand in admitting the students in the college unless and until the NCTE grants recognition to the college. 13. In the written instruction furnished by the NCTE, it has been highlighted as to how on each occasion towards granting temporary recognition on yearly basis, the college was instructed to fulfill the requirements. Provisional recognition was extended to the college vide Order No. 82 dated 12.1.2000 for the academic year 2000-2001 with an intake of 60 students subject to removal of the following deficiencies: i. The qualifications of the teaching staff should be as per NCTE norms. ii. The teachers should be paid salary as per UGC/State Govt. scales. iii. Instructional area should be as per NCTE norms. iv. Residential accommodation, play field and Common Room should be developed as per NCTE norms. v. Students with 45% marks in the qualifying examination should be admitted. vi. Curriculum transaction should be as per NCTE norms. 14. ii. The teachers should be paid salary as per UGC/State Govt. scales. iii. Instructional area should be as per NCTE norms. iv. Residential accommodation, play field and Common Room should be developed as per NCTE norms. v. Students with 45% marks in the qualifying examination should be admitted. vi. Curriculum transaction should be as per NCTE norms. 14. As per the said written instruction furnished by NCTE, the Petitioner college was advised to send the compliance report indicating removal of deficiencies to the ERC by 31.8.2000. In the meantime the college was granted recognition for one year for the session 2001-2002 with an annual intake of 60 students conditionally. The college was visited by a team of experts deputed by the NCTE as per the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. The expert body submitted its report and on the basis of the same a notice vide letter dated 13.1.2003 was issued to the college asking for fulfillment of certain conditions which are quoted below: i). Out of the total full time/part time teachers appointed by the institution three do not have P.G. degree in Education and none of them are qualified NET/SLET. ii) The education technology lab does not have computer and associated peripherals, CD-ROM on education is also not available. iii) Encyclopedia is not available in the library. iv) The salary paid to the teaching staff is not as per the scale prescribed by the Central/State/UGC. v) The salary is paid in cash. vi) Account detail and records of income and expenditure were not shown to the inspection team. 15. It has further been disclosed in the written instruction that on receipt of reply from the college, same was forwarded to the ERC which in turn considered the matter in its entirely in its 39th meeting and issued a show cause notice to the college under No. 3153 vide letter dated 11.11.2003 on the following points: i. The institution does not have requisite teachers as per NCTE norms; ii. The education technology lab does not have Computer and associated peripheral including CD-ROM on education. iii. Library is not maintained as per NCTE norms. iv. The salary paid to the teaching staff is not per the scale prescribed by the Central/State/UGC. v. Details of audited accounts and records of income and expenditure were not shown to the inspection team. vi. The education technology lab does not have Computer and associated peripheral including CD-ROM on education. iii. Library is not maintained as per NCTE norms. iv. The salary paid to the teaching staff is not per the scale prescribed by the Central/State/UGC. v. Details of audited accounts and records of income and expenditure were not shown to the inspection team. vi. The institution has not submitted PAR (2002-2003) and other supporting documents as asked vide our letter dt. 5.9.2003. vii. The institution has not adhered to the revised norms prescribed by NCTE dt. 13th November, 2002. 16. It has further been disclosed in the written instruction that the ERC in its 41st meeting considered the replies furnished by the college and found that the institution was deficient in the points quoted below: i. The institution do not have requisite qualified teachers as per NCTE norms. ii. The education technology lab does not have Computer and associated peripheral including CD-ROM on education. iii. Library is not maintained as per NCTE norms. iv. The salary paid to the teaching staff is not as per the scale prescribed by the Central/State/UGC. v. Details of audited accounts and records of income and expenditure were not shown to the inspection team. vi. The institution has not submitted PAR (2002-2003) and other supporting documents as asked vide our letter dt. 5.9.2003. vii. The institution has not adhered to the revised norms prescribed by NCTE dt. 13th November, 2002. 17. In view of the aforesaid deficiencies, which the college could not meet inspite of repeated opportunities granted, the NCTE decided to withdraw the recognition granted earlier. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 6.2.2004 was issued followed by rejection of the appeal by order dated 21.8.2004. 18. Mr. A.M. Majumdar, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. F.K.R. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as per the appellate order dated 21.8.2004 only disqualification of the college being in respect of qualification of teachers which is stated to be not in accordance with NCTE norms, which in the meantime have been met with, the matter requires fresh consideration of the NCTE. On the other hand Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned Counsel appearing for the NCTE supporting the impugned action towards de-recognition of the college for the B.Ed. On the other hand Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned Counsel appearing for the NCTE supporting the impugned action towards de-recognition of the college for the B.Ed. course submitted that as per the own showing of the Petitioner, they have failed to meet the discrepancies pointed out by the NCTE and consequently the NCTE had no option than to pass the impugned orders. Ms. R. Bhattacherjee learned Counsel led by Mr. L.P. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the University submitted that in absence of NCTE recognition to the college, the University cannot allow the college to admit students and thus there is no question of allowing the college to sponsor students to sit in the B.Ed. examination. 19. Some of the deficiencies as indicated in the impugned order dated 6.2.2004 have been met with by the Petitioner college as would be evident from the appellate order dated 21.8.2004. It appears that while passing the appellate order, the appellate authority took into consideration certain documents asked for from the college authority which was submitted on 3.6.2004 and the same were examined by the Special Appeal Committee in its meeting held on 27.7.2004. On the basis of those documents the appellate authority came to the conclusion that although some of the discrepancies mentioned in the impugned order dated 6.2.2004 had been met with but as regards the qualification of teachers same was not in accordance with NCTE norms. As per the NCTE norms, a lecturer should be appointed having good academic record with M.Ed./M.A. (Education) with 55% marks. It was noted by the appellate authority that as per the list furnished by the college, out of 7 lecturers 2 did not fulfill the criteria of 55% marks in M.A. (Education) and 5 lectures did not have M.Ed. qualification. 20. It is on the above basis, the appellate authority has affirmed the impugned order dated 6.2.2004 by Annexure-VIII order dated 21.8.2004. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placing reliance on the incumbency lists annexed to the writ petition argued that almost all the lecturers have fulfilled the requirements of NCTE norms and the same was duly intimated to the appellate authority, but the same was not considered in its true perspective and the said authority passed the appellate order entirely on a wrong notion of the matter. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also referred to the list of lecturers indicated in the written argument to bring home his point of argument that the lecturers have basically fulfilled the requirements of the NCTE norms. 21. The incumbency lists submitted by the Petitioner alongwith the writ petition and the written argument are somewhat confusing. While in the typed copy of the list annexed to the writ petition, there are altogether 12 lecturers, in the handwritten copy annexed to the writ petition there are only 7 lecturers and some of the names are common in both the lists. In the list annexed to the written argument there are 14 lecturers and as in the first two lists, some of the names are common in all the lists. From such a position depicted by the Petitioner it is not discernible as to who are the 7 lecturers as indicated in the appellate order according to which they do not fulfill the requirement of NCTE norms. According to the appellate order two out of the 7 lecturers do not fulfill the criteria of 55% marks in MA (Education) and 5 lecturers are not having the M.Ed. qualification. 22. As per the Norms and Standard for Teacher Education Institutions (Bachelor of Education), formulated by the NCTE, a copy of which has been produced by the learned Counsel for the NCTE, the following criteria/qualifications have been laid down for appointment of lecturer. 5. Qualification of Teaching Staff (a) Principal/Head (i) Academic and professional qualification will be as prescribed for the post of lecturer (ii) Ten years experience of which atleast 5 years should be in a secondary teacher education institution. (b) Lecturer Good academic record with M.Ed./M.A. (Education) with 55% marks or Good academic record with Master's Degree with 55% marks in the relevant school subject and a B.Ed. degree with 55% marks with five years' teaching experience in a recognized Secondary/Senior Secondary School. (This alternative qualification shall be applicable only in those steps where prior to the establishment of NCTE, the qualification for appointment of teachers in B.Ed. institutions was a Post Graduate Degree in a school subject with B.Ed. However, teachers appointed with this qualification will have to acquire M.Ed. qualification within 5 years.) (c) A relaxation of 5% may be provided from 55% to 50% of the marks, at the Master's level for the SC/ST category. institutions was a Post Graduate Degree in a school subject with B.Ed. However, teachers appointed with this qualification will have to acquire M.Ed. qualification within 5 years.) (c) A relaxation of 5% may be provided from 55% to 50% of the marks, at the Master's level for the SC/ST category. (d) Apart from the qualification prescribed at (a) and (b) above, the candidates shall be required to have such other qualifications as may be prescribed by other regulatory bodies like the University Grants Commission (UGC), etc. 23. On the basis of the aforesaid prescribed qualification, if the hand written list of 7 lecturers annexed to the writ petition is taken into consideration to be the list containing the names of the 7 lecturers about which a mention has been made in the appellate order dated 21.8.2004, it will be seen that out of the said 7 lecturers, 5 do not have M.Ed. degree and 1 lecturer does not have 55% marks in M.A. Although the learned Counsel for the Petitioner put much emphasis on the alternative qualification, it is not discernible as to whether the said alternative qualification is applicable to the instant case. Even if the same is held to be applicable, as per the said list the lecturers having B.Ed. qualification do not conform to the requirements of B.Ed. degree with 55% marks. The Petitioner has also not stated as to whether such lecturers have had 5 years' teaching experience in a recognized Secondary/Senior Secondary School. 24. In view of the above position, it cannot be said that the NCTE committed anything wrong in passing the impugned orders in not granting recognition of B.Ed. course in the Petitioner college. Consequently, the action of the University authority in not allowing the college to admit students and to send them for the B.Ed. examination cannot be faulted with. As per Annexure-IX notification issued by the Gauhati University one of the conditions precedent is that the college will have to obtain NCTE recognition before admitting students. The B.Ed. colleges having NCTE recognition and Gauhati University affiliation are only allowed to admit students for the Session 2004-2005 with the intake capacity as specified by the NCTE. 25. There is another aspect of the matter. The B.Ed. colleges having NCTE recognition and Gauhati University affiliation are only allowed to admit students for the Session 2004-2005 with the intake capacity as specified by the NCTE. 25. There is another aspect of the matter. While entertaining the writ petition, an interim order was passed on 16.9.2004 permitting the Petitioner college to admit students provisionally for the session 2004-2005 and such admission was specified to be subject to further order to be passed. Thereafter, the Petitioner college filed Misc. Case No. 1916/2005 seeking a direction to the Respondents to allow 100 students of the college to sit in the examination scheduled to be held on 22.7.2005. A further prayer was made for a direction to the Respondents allowing admission of 100 students to the B.Ed. course for the session 2005-2006. Considering the earlier interim order, a further interim order dated 29.6.2005 was passed permitting Petitioner college to take further steps for submission of forms to the University and to allow the students to sit in the examination. 26. The Petitioner college filed another miscellaneous application being Misc. Case No. 2729/2005 seeking a direction to permit the students to sit in the B.Ed. examination scheduled to be held by the University with effect from 13.9.2005. While entertaining the said application by order dated 7.9.2005, it was noticed that as against the intake capacity of students fixed by the NCTE as 60, the Petitioner college had submitted the forms of 99 students. In the said order a detailed discussions have been made about the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition and the orders passed therein. It was noticed that for the session 2003-2004, temporary recognition was granted to the college with intake capacity of 60 students. The college unilaterally enhanced the intake capacity and this Court dismissing the Miscellaneous application observed that such a course of action adopted by the college was not tenable. There being no order from the NCTE enhancing the intake capacity, this Court was of the opinion that the college could not have enhanced the same unilaterally and consequently the prayer of the Petitioner college to allow all the 99 students to send for the examination was rejected. 27. There being no order from the NCTE enhancing the intake capacity, this Court was of the opinion that the college could not have enhanced the same unilaterally and consequently the prayer of the Petitioner college to allow all the 99 students to send for the examination was rejected. 27. From the aforesaid factual position also it will be seen that the Petitioner college apart from not fulfilling the requirements of the NCTE norms, also violated the ceiling fixed by the NCTE as regards the students intake, which aspect of the matter has been elaborately discussed in the aforesaid order dated 7.9.2005 passed in Misc. Case No. 2729/2005. 28. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. The fact finding body having arrived at the impugned decisions, same cannot be interfered with in absence of anything to show that such findings on the face of it are not based on actual facts and/or are perverse. Rather it is on record as has been discussed above, that the Petitioner college did not fulfill the NCTE norms, which landed them in the trouble in which they find themselves by way of the impugned orders. 29. Although the impugned orders have been upheld and are not being interfered with it will be open for the NCTE to reconsider the grievance of the Petitioner afresh and/or to consider its case for recognition inasmuch as there is always possibility of removing the discrepancies for which the college did not get recognition for the session in question. There cannot be any reason as to why the NCTE will not consider the case of the Petitioner college for fresh recognition on fulfilment of the requisite NCTE criteria. The Petitioner may approach the NCTE, if they feel that they conform to the requirement of the NCTE norms and upon such approach, if made by the Petitioner, the NCTE shall consider their case as per the laid down norms. 30. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed