JUDGMENT Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner institute runs a course for Bachelor in Education Certificate. It applied for increasing the intake capacity. The institution is affiliated to the Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. The application for increasing the intake capacity was moved on 7.12.2008, a copy of the same has been filed as annexure-5 to the writ petition. The said request was accompanied with all essential documents and the amount of security deposit etc. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that there was no deficiency in relation to any of the financial matters relating thereto. The infrastructure was available, yet the request of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 5th June, 2009. The petitioner further contends that the deficiencies which were pointed out therein, had already been removed, as such, the impugned order is vitiated. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the National Council, which has also been rejected on 11.9.2009. While disposing of the appeal, the appellate authority has recorded that no satisfactory reply had been made by the institution with regard to the deficiencies and even otherwise, the institution had not been accredited itself with the National Assessment and Accreditation Council. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the two additional grounds of accreditation and having not completed three academic sessions, which have been taken for rejection, are unjustified. 6. Sri Rajiv Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 submits that the Regulations which were framed and published in the gazette on 10.12.2007 contains the conditions for the grant of recognition and the relevant provisions are contained in Regulation 8 thereof. He has invited the attention of the Court to Sub-regulation 3 and 4 of Regulation 8 in particular to urge that the findings recorded in the appellate order do not suffer from any infirmity. He, therefore, contends that the writ petitioner has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. 7. A perusal of Sub-regulation 3 and 4 would reflect on the conditions which are required to be fulfilled before the permission is granted to increase the intake capacity. The said Sub-regulations are gainfully reproduced hereinunder:- "(3)?? He, therefore, contends that the writ petitioner has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. 7. A perusal of Sub-regulation 3 and 4 would reflect on the conditions which are required to be fulfilled before the permission is granted to increase the intake capacity. The said Sub-regulations are gainfully reproduced hereinunder:- "(3)?? An institution shall be permitted to apply for enhancement of course wise intake in teacher education courses already approved, after completion of three academic sessions of running the respective courses. (4)? An institution shall be permitted to apply for enhancement of intake in Secondary Teacher Education Programme- B.Ed. & B.P. Ed. Programme, if it has accredited itself with the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) with a Letter Grade B development by NAAC." 8. A perusal of the said regulations, therefore, indicates that the provisions for making an application for enhancement of coursewise intake capacity in a course already approved, would be available after completion of three academic sessions for running the respective course. The petitioner had admittedly been granted recognition in 2006 and, therefore, more than three years have already passed. The institution, therefore, has run through more than three academic sessions and as such, the said ineligibility, which has been pointed out in the impugned orders stands obliterated. The petitioner, institution, therefore, now stands qualified and eligible for applying afresh for an additional intake capacity for the course in the current session. 9. This application should however, be accompanied by an accreditation with a Letter Grade B developed by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council as per Sub-rule (4) hereinabove. The petitioner shall, therefore, apply for such accreditation with the said council and the council shall examine the same and then deliver a letter in Grade B in accordance with law to the petitioner institution. 10. It is trite law that subsequent events can be taken into account for passing appropriate orders by the Courts. With the passage of time and the requisite academic sessions having already been carried out, the petitioner institution can, therefore, now apply afresh in accordance with the rules upon pointing out the removal of the deficiencies as indicated in the impugned orders along with the accreditation in accordance with Sub-rule (4) hereinabove. If such an application is moved, the petitioner's request shall be considered by the National Council for Teachers Education through the Northern Regional Committee afresh in accordance with law. If such an application is moved, the petitioner's request shall be considered by the National Council for Teachers Education through the Northern Regional Committee afresh in accordance with law. If the application is accordingly moved, the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of presentation of the same before the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 shall proceed to process the matter afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove without being influenced by the earlier rejection orders. 11. With the above observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of.