Judgment : 1. The petitioner is a college of education and is running B.Ed. Course on the basis of the approval accorded by the National Council for Teacher Education (N.C.T.E.).The Central Government introduced certain schemes for spread of school education. That naturally needed quite large number of teachers. For admission into B.Ed. Course, Graduation is the qualification. Inasmuch as the necessity was at primarily level, new Course, namely Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) was introduced. The N.C.T.E. is the competent authority for grant of recognition. The petitioner submitted its application to the Regional Director, N.C.T.E., the respondent herein, on 03.02.2004.The application was processed and through a communication, dated 10.08.2004, the respondent informed the petitioner that certain deficiencies are noticed and the petitioner was required to correct the deficiencies. They were in relation to furniture, improvement of laboratory and acquisition of some equipment for the laboratory. The petitioner claims to have complied with the requirements. 2. The petitioner states that it was only on 30.09.2008 that a letter was received from the respondent pointing out as many as seven deficiencies this time, by making reference to N.C.T.E. Regulations, dated 10.12.2007.Ninety days time was given for rectification of the deficiencies. According to the petitioner, necessary steps were taken to cure the defects and the same was informed to the respondent, through speed post on 24.10.2008. 3. The respondent passed an order, dated 02.03.2009, stating that the application of the petitioner, dated 03.02.2004, is closed on account of its failure to comply with the requirements within the stipulated time of ninety days. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. It is urged that the deficiencies pointed out by the respondent have been complied with and though the compliance report was forwarded within time, the respondent proceeded as though no steps were taken. 4. A counter-affidavit is filed by the respondent. The submission of application by the petitioner and issuance of a letter, dated 30.09.2008, by the respondent pointing out certain deficiencies is not disputed. However, the statement of the petitioner that it has complied with the deficiencies and addressed a letter, dated 24.10.2008, is denied and it is stated that no such letter was received. The respondent further states that the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh addressed letters, dated 07.01.2009 and 07.02.2009, stating that in view of the turnout of students from the existing B.Ed. and D.Ed. The respondent further states that the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh addressed letters, dated 07.01.2009 and 07.02.2009, stating that in view of the turnout of students from the existing B.Ed. and D.Ed. colleges, it is no more necessary to grant recognition to new colleges or courses. The relevant rule that enables the respondent to close the application on account of noncompliance is also extracted. 5. Heard Sri V. Tulasi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. It is a matter of record that the petitioner submitted application way back on 03.02.2004 seeking recognition for D.Ed. Course in an existing B.Ed. College. Fairly large amount is required to be deposited in the joint accounts and provision is required to be made for accommodation, equipment etc. The application was processed and a Committee inspected the institution. Three deficiencies were pointed out in the letter, dated 26.08.2005, addressed by the respondent. They relate to furniture, improvement facilities in the laboratory and acquisition of some equipment. The petitioner promptly replied to the same stating that the deficiencies pointed out by the respondent were rectified. 7. The respondent sat over the matter for more than four years. The blanks in a cyclostyled letter were filled on 30.09.2008 and it was forwarded to the petitioner. It appears that all the seven deficiencies, which were printed in that letter, were common to many applicants. The only particulars that were written with pen are the address of the petitioner, Code number, being 2586 and the date of the letter submitted by the petitioner, namely 24.08.2004.Ninety days time was stipulated for compliance with these deficiencies. While the petitioner states that the compliance was reported through letter, dated 24.10.2008, the respondent denies the same. On its part, the petitioner had enclosed the receipt for a speed post, issued by the Postal Department. The respondent passed the impugned order, dated 02.03.2009, stating that the application was closed on account of the failure of the petitioner to fulfill the deficiencies within the stipulated time of ninety days. This Court is not at all impressed with the manner in which the respondent dealt with the application of the petitioner. 8. By any standard, four years cannot be said to be a reasonable time for an agency to respond to the communication issued by an applicant reporting compliance. This Court is not at all impressed with the manner in which the respondent dealt with the application of the petitioner. 8. By any standard, four years cannot be said to be a reasonable time for an agency to respond to the communication issued by an applicant reporting compliance. A perusal of the letter, dated 30.09.2008, discloses the casual, if not indifferent approach on the part of the respondent. Three deficiencies were pointed out by him in relation to the application of the petitioner way back in the year 2004. They are very trivial in nature. The petitioner replied almost instantly. No response ensued for four years, nor any further inspection took place. The deficiencies just doubled in the meanwhile. 9. Assuming that there existed any impediment for the respondent to process the application for a period of four years, at least when the matter was taken up, he ought to have examined with reference to the developments that have taken place so far. A totally unrelated, obtuse and irrelevant response was given after four years, not only without making reference to the reply given by the petitioner, but also referring to certain things, which do not apply to the petitioner at all. All the same, the petitioner had reported compliance. 10. Even if the compliance was not within the stipulated time, the respondent was not at all justified in closing the application on that sole ground. The respondent gives an impression that he is free to sit over the matter for years together and to issue a communication without application of mind, but the petitioner is supposed to act with utmost promptitude or face the consequences not because there is any deficiency or noncompliance. The respondent cannot have such a prerogative while functioning in the public domain. The amount of hardship undergone by the petitioner for the past five years without being able to admit a single candidate, having invested huge amounts for providing infrastructure and making deposits is not beyond imagination. The acts and omissions on the part of the respondent are unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. It is urged before this Court that even if the petitioner has fulfilled all the conditions, it is not possible to grant recognition, on the ground that a policy decision was taken not to grant any more permissions. This is not true. 11. It is urged before this Court that even if the petitioner has fulfilled all the conditions, it is not possible to grant recognition, on the ground that a policy decision was taken not to grant any more permissions. This is not true. Instances have come before this Court where recognition was accorded for D.Ed. Course for the current academic year also. Further, even if a policy decision is taken, it can only apply prospectively and not for the applications which were languishing in the office of the respondent for the past half-a-decade, awaiting his response. 12. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders, taking into account the compliance reported by the petitioner to the deficiencies pointed out, in his letter, 30.09.2008.This exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.