JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Rajeev Joshi for the respondents. 2. The appellant No. 1 is an institution professing term a B.Ed. Course and the appellant No. 2 is its Secretary. They approached this Court questioning the correctness of the decision taken by the Regional Committee of the National Council for Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NCTE’) on 22nd April, 2010, by which the application filed by the appellant institution for grant of recognition for running the B. Ed. course has been rejected. The ground for such rejection was that the faculties engaged by the institution were not possessed of the qualifications prescribed under the NCTE regulations. Learned counsel for the respondents NCTE opposed the writ petition on the ground that the appellants have an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the National Council for Teachers Education Act. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by the order impugned in the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that, as a matter of fact, this exercise had earlier been repeated and the institution was compelled to file Writ Petition No. 70131 of 2009 against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, i.e. NCTE refusing to grant recognition for running the B. Ed. course on the same ground, namely, the faculties engaged by the appellant-institution were not possessed of the requisite qualifications as per NCTE norms. This Court remitted the matter back to the Regional Committee vide judgment dated 22nd December, 2009 expressing its concern about the manner of functioning of the Appellate Authority. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that, instead of proceeding with the matter in the light of the observations made by this Court, the Regional Committee has again repeated the same error and has recorded a cryptic finding without any reasons in support thereof as to why the claim of the appellant institution was rejected. Learned counsel contends that all the faculties that were engaged by the appellant institution are possessed of the requisite qualifications and there being no deficiency, there was no occasion for the Regional Committee to have again rejected the claim. Learned counsel contends that all the faculties that were engaged by the appellant institution are possessed of the requisite qualifications and there being no deficiency, there was no occasion for the Regional Committee to have again rejected the claim. To substantiate the submission, learned counsel invited the attention of the Court to the recommendations made by the Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut dated 26th February, 2010 in respect of the faculties engaged by the appellant institution as per the requirements of the NCTE norms. On the basis of the said recommendations, it is contended that the University found all the faculties engaged by the institution to be duly qualified for being engaged as teachers. Learned counsel, therefore, contends that the conclusion arrived at in respect of appellant-institution at Item No. 40 of the impugned decision dated 22nd April, 2010, does not take notice of the aforesaid recommendation and, as such, it reflects complete non-application of mind. 5. Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent NCTE contends that the Regulations, which have been brought on record, indicate the qualifications, and the allegation of the appellants can be looked into by the Appellate Authority keeping in view the qualifications possessed by the faculties engaged by the appellant-institution as recommended by the University as per the norms of the NCTE. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of submissions advanced, we find no justification for again relegating the appellants back to the Appellate Authority for reassessment or for any other exercise in respect of grant of recognition, inasmuch as the impugned decision dated 22nd April, 2010 does not record any adverse finding insofar as the qualifications actually possessed by the faculties engaged by the appellant institution are concerned. The qualifications as also the certificates appended in support thereof have been perused by us, which have been considered by the Selection Committee of the University while granting approval for engagement of the faculties engaged by the appellant institution. We do not find any deficiency of qualifications, which may impel the authorities to reject the claim of the institution for recognition of running the B. Ed. course. We do not find any deficiency of qualifications, which may impel the authorities to reject the claim of the institution for recognition of running the B. Ed. course. Accordingly, we direct that the respondent No. 2 shall proceed to pass fresh orders within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him, in the light of the observations made by us herein above. 7. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ————