Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. Aggrieved of the order dated 29.5.2009 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No. 2 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of recognition for commencement of the B.Ed. course as also the order dated 7.8.2009 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal, this petition has been filed by the petitioner-society registered under the Societies Registration Act. 2. The brief resume of the facts is that the petitoner-society is registered since 1919, it has established a number of educational institutions as per the details in para 2 of the writ petition. The society applied to respondent No. 2 for grant of recognition for B.Ed. course in the Aggarwal College of Education, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad established by the society. The application dated 19.1.2008 was submitted to respondent No. 2 along with application fee of Rs. 41,000/- and FDR amounting of Rs. 5.00 lacs. Respondent No. 2 issued Letter of Intent dated 23.7.2008 (Annexure P-1) seeking unconditional confirmation of the readiness for physical verification of the institution. In response to the Letter of Intent, the petitioner conveyed its unconditional consent for inspection of the constitution and also deposited a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as reserve fund vide its communication dated 9.8.2008 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner society was conveyed vide letter dated 27.9.2008 (Annexure P-3) regarding visit of the inspection team between 6.10.2008 to 8.10.2008 and was asked to make arrangements for videography at its own expenses and also comply with the conditions stipulated therein. The inspection team conducted inspection on 8.10.2008. It appears that on the recommendation of the inspection team, a show cause notice dated 25.3.2009 was issued to the petitioner communicating following objections :- "a. The Government recommendation is negative. b. The land is not in the name of the institution. c. The building plan is approved for Aggarwal College but not for Aggarwal College of Education. d. No supporting documents in respect of hardware and software for Language Lab." 3. Petitioner-society submitted its reply to the show cause notice qualifying and meeting all the objections. In respect to the first objection, it was stated that at the time of making application, issue of Letter of Intent, State had never conveyed its objections to the establishment of the College. Petitioner-society submitted its reply to the show cause notice qualifying and meeting all the objections. In respect to the first objection, it was stated that at the time of making application, issue of Letter of Intent, State had never conveyed its objections to the establishment of the College. It appears that the reply of the petitioner to the how cause notice did not satisfy, the respondent No. 2 and application of the petitioner was accordingly rejected in 141st meeting of respondent No. 2 held on 25/26.4.2009. The decision of rejecting was communicated to the petitioner vide (Annexure P-7) with the following observations :- "The deficiencies communicated to the Institution in the show cause notice were not removed in the stipulated time." Aggrieved of the aforesaid rejection order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the prescribed appellate authority of the NCTE. The appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejecting vide order dated 7.8.2009 (Annexure P-11) confirming the order of the respondent No. 2 While rejecting the appeal, the appellate authority has noticed the order passed by respondent No. 2 in respect to the opinion of the State Government and the same is reproduced as under :- "AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the State Government took a policy decision not to recommend and more B.Ed. college in the State as there were already more than 400 colleges of education in the State and the total number of students who pass graduation every year was 42000 as a result of which thousands of seats remained unfilled. Therefore, the Council was of the view that there was no ground to accept the appeal." 4. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order of the NCTE. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that primarily the application of the petitioner for granting recognition has been rejected on account of o[pinion of the State Government. The State Government vide its letter dated 19.11.2008 (Annexure P-9) conveyed to the respondent No. 2 that the matter regarding opening of new B.Ed. Colleges in Haryana is under consideration of the State Government to take a policy decision and request was made to keep pending the proposals for giving recognition to open new B.Ed. The State Government vide its letter dated 19.11.2008 (Annexure P-9) conveyed to the respondent No. 2 that the matter regarding opening of new B.Ed. Colleges in Haryana is under consideration of the State Government to take a policy decision and request was made to keep pending the proposals for giving recognition to open new B.Ed. communication dated 23.5.2009 informing respondent No. 2 that the State Government has taken a policy decision for not opening any new Self-Financing Teachers Training Institutions in Haryana in the academic Sessions 2009-10 and 2010-11. It was further communicated that the State Government may consider at any point of time increasing the intake capacity in the Government/Aided sector where the fee is much lower as compared to the self- financing colleges. It appears that on the basis of the aforesaid two communications, the application of the petitioner for grant of recognition has been rejected. The petitioner has also placed on the record a list of institutions in the State of Haryana established to impart B.E.D. training courses. All these institutions were inspected between 6.10.2008 to 8.10.2008 and out of 46 institutions, the approval has been granted to a large number of institutions including such institutions, who had applied later than the petitioner. Petitioner also placed on record copy of a communication dated 22.7.2009 (Annexure P-13) from the Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak to Vishwas Educational Society, pataudi, Distt. Gurgaon, granting Conditional Provisional Affiliation even in anticipation of the grant of recognition by the NCTE. It is alleged that this college had been granted permission to participate in the counselling without recognition of the institution. The petitioner has also placed on record two orders, both dated 7.8.2009, whereby the Appellate Authority of NCTE has granted recognition/approval to two colleges namely "Shree Ganpati Institute of Education and technology", Faizabad, P.O.-Hudina, Narnaul, Haryana and "Shri Hanumant Shiksha Samitis H.J. Institute of Education and Technology", Mohindergarh, Haryana for conducting B.Ed. course by accepting their appeals despite negative recommendation of the State Government. However, the case of the petitioner on the same ground has been rejected. 6. The petitioner has raised two contentions, first that the State Government has no authority to prevent establishment of any new college and second, the action of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. 7. Expect respondents Nos. 1 and 2, reply has not been filed by the other respondents. 6. The petitioner has raised two contentions, first that the State Government has no authority to prevent establishment of any new college and second, the action of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. 7. Expect respondents Nos. 1 and 2, reply has not been filed by the other respondents. Even respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed their reply under the specific directions of the Court. It is admitted by the NCTE that the similarly situated institutions were granted recognition on the same day, the case of the petitioner was rejected. It is, however, not disputed that in all these cases, the State Governments recommendation were negative. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 9. Petitioner had satisfied all the conditions for establishment of the college at the relevant time. The petitioner constructed the building and other infrastructure pursuant to the Letter of Intent issued by respondent No. 2. It is stated that petitioner has invested huge amount for creation of infrastructure which includes the building, purchase of Books, Air Conditioners, Almirahs, Water Coolers, Furniture and establishment of Labs etc. The deficiencies pointed out to the petitioner in the shoe cause notice dated 25.3.2009 have been removed. There is no communication by the respondent to the petitioner that the deficiency continue to exist. The only ground for rejection of the application of the petitioner is negative recommendation of the State Government. Two communications of the State Government have been placed on record. Even though the State of Haryana is a party itself but failed to file any reply. No policy decision of the State has been placed on record based upon any survey conducted with regard to the necessity and requirement of more educational colleges. Even in the communication dated 23.8.2009 it has been conveyed that the Government that the Government has decided not to permit any self-financed institution in the State Government may consider, at any point of time, increasing the intake capacity in the Government/Aided sector where the fees is much lower as compared to the self- financing college. Even in the communication dated 23.8.2009 it has been conveyed that the Government that the Government has decided not to permit any self-financed institution in the State Government may consider, at any point of time, increasing the intake capacity in the Government/Aided sector where the fees is much lower as compared to the self- financing college. Thus, the plea in the main appeal order dated 7.8.2009 that there is no requirement of further colleges is not based upon any valid and reliable material on record nor any such material has been placed before the Court to Justify the action of the State and consequently that of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. As a matter of fact, there is no policy framed by the State in this regard. Mere reference in the letter is not sufficient unless a valid policy is formulated by the State on the basis of survey conducted for the purpose. Thus rejection of the application of the petitioner thus regard is not justifiable under any circumstances. 10. Apart from the above, action of the respondent is totally illegal and unwarranted in view of the fact that moreso similarly situated college have been granted recognition on the same day i.e. on 7.8.2009, when the appeal of the petitioner was rejected. From the perusal of the orders passed in favour of the two referred colleges, it is found that in those cases also, the State had given negative recommendation but those colleges were granted approval and petitioner has been denied. This fact is admitted in the reply. No valid reason for such rejection has been in the reply. No deficiency features have been brought on record. Total bias and hostile treatment has been given to the petitioner b the bodies like NCTE, the Apex Body created by a special statute to ensure the maintenance of educational standards and fairness in the action. Unfortunately, the functioning of the such Apex Body is surrounded by clouds of unfairness, bias and arbitrariness. It has come to notice of this Court that the arbitrariness in most of the cases is hall of its functioning. 11. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders (Annexure P-7) and (Annexure P-11) are hereby set aside an matter is remitted back to the appellate authority-NCTE for re-determination on the merits notwithstanding the negative recommendations of the State. 11. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders (Annexure P-7) and (Annexure P-11) are hereby set aside an matter is remitted back to the appellate authority-NCTE for re-determination on the merits notwithstanding the negative recommendations of the State. Respondent No. 1 shall re-determine the case of the petitioner on the basis of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice and if need be, a fresh inspection may also be carried out. The entire exercise of re-consideration be completed within a period of one month. Petition allowed.