SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.:–Heard the parties. 2. All the three cases have been heard together because they relate to same institution namely Teachers Training College, 83 Ashok Nagar, Gaya and common issues of fact and law are involved . All the three cases shall be governed by this common order. 3. Both the letters patent appeals are directed against a common order dated 16.11.2010 whereby the learned single Judge has partly granted relief to the college in question by directing the National Council for Teachers Education (in short N.C.T.E.) to grant a personal hearing to the writ petitioner who shall make its submissions in a written manner answering all the allegations against it and then to take a decision in respect of each item by a reasoned and speaking order. Liberty has been granted that if the NCTE requires to carry out further inspection, it may call call upon the college for deposit of fee for such inspection. The writ court has observed that if the N.C.T.E. wishes to carry out any further or fresh inspection, the institution is bound to answer all questions, furnish materials and render all necessary assistance, otherwise the NCTE will be free to exercise its discretion in the matter in accordance with law. On request of the college the Writ Court has also observed that if any deficiencies are found, the NCTE shall grant reasonable time to the petitioner/ college, as it may have granted to others, for removal of such deficiencies before taking a final decision in the matter. 4. L.P.A. No. 601 of 2011 arises out of C.W.J.C. No. 12038 of 2010 filed by the College against common appellate order dated 7.6.2010 passed in appeal by Vice Chairperson, N.C.T.E. New Delhi as also against original order dated 14th January, 2010 whereby conditional recognition granted to the college in 2006 under sections 14 and 15 of the National Council for Teachers Training Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for conducting B..Ed./ ETE course with an intake capacity of 50 students, was withdrawn with effect from Sessions 2010-11. 5. L.P.A. No. 641 of 2011 relates to C.W.J.C. No.11478 of 2010 which was also filed by the college against the common appellate order dated 7.6.2010 and the original order dated 14.1.2010 whereby the recognition granted to the college in the year 2006 under sections 14 and 15 of the Act for conducting B. Ed. 5. L.P.A. No. 641 of 2011 relates to C.W.J.C. No.11478 of 2010 which was also filed by the college against the common appellate order dated 7.6.2010 and the original order dated 14.1.2010 whereby the recognition granted to the college in the year 2006 under sections 14 and 15 of the Act for conducting B. Ed. course with an intake capacity of 100 students which was further enhanced to 200 in the year 2008, was also withdrawn from Sessions 2010-11. 6. C.W.J.C. No. 14609 of 2011 has also been preferred by the college seeking an order to direct the concerned authority specially respondent nos. 4 and 5, the Chairman and Secretary of Bihar School Examination Board to supply the requisite examination form to the college so that students of the college admitted for the Sessions 2009-11 may fill up the forms and take the examination of D.Ed./ ETE which was to be held pursuant to notice dated 7-7-2011. Learned counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board has been heard in connection with this writ petition only. 7. It is not in dispute that withdrawal of recognition was ordered by the NCTE on 14.1.2010 after a fresh inspection of the college leading to inspection report dated 29.6.2009. After the inspection the N.C.T.E. issued a show cause notice on 14.10.2009 and after receiving reply from the college the impugned order dated 14.1.2010 was passed and the appeals were rejected on 7.6.2010 leading to filing of the writ petitions connected with the Letters Patent Appeals. 8. Learned counsel for the N.C.T.E. in both the L.P.As. has submitted that the decision dated 14.1.2010 made after observing requirement of natural justice requires no interference because issue of grant of recognition or its withdrawal must be left to the wisdom of N.C.T.E. an expert statutory body created for the purpose. His further submission is that the writ court has interfered in the matter on an erroneous finding that the decision making process is not free from mist. According to him, the requirement of teaching faculty with appropriate qualification and infrastructure for both the courses - ETE and B.Ed. His further submission is that the writ court has interfered in the matter on an erroneous finding that the decision making process is not free from mist. According to him, the requirement of teaching faculty with appropriate qualification and infrastructure for both the courses - ETE and B.Ed. are laid down by NCTE and only when it is found that those requirements have not been met by the institution even after considerable period, in this case from 2006, then the expert body has to take appropriate decision on the basis of all the relevant materials including inspection reports after granting opportunity to file show cause. NCTE followed the said procedure and took the impugned decision objectively. He has drawn our attention to the show cause notice and the discussions made against each item in the appellate order for submitting that there was no good ground to interfere with the decisions under challenge before the writ court. 9. On the other hand learned counsel for the college has submitted that the Principal of the College had the requisite qualification as laid down in the norms and standards for B.Ed. Programe which permit appointment of a retired professor/ Head in Education, on contract basis for a period not exceeding one year at a time till such time the candidate completes 65 years of age. According to him the Principal of the College is a retired Head in Education. Learned counsel also advanced submission on the basis of conclusion in the enquiry report dated 29.6.2009 that the enquiry team while making an over all assessment of the institution recorded that Human Resources, infrastructural facilities and instructional facilities are adequate as per NCTE norms. According to him the decision of the N.C.T.E. is required to be in accordance with the enquiry report and not at variance but in case there is scope for doubt, fresh inspection is required to be held. In support of this, reliance was placed upon a D.O. letter by the Chairperson of NCTE dated 7th August, 2008 which is annexure-7 to I.A. No. 3583 of 2012 in C.W.J.C. No. 14609 of 2011. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the N.C.T.E. has submitted that the present Principal was appointed a month after the inspection. In support of this, reliance was placed upon a D.O. letter by the Chairperson of NCTE dated 7th August, 2008 which is annexure-7 to I.A. No. 3583 of 2012 in C.W.J.C. No. 14609 of 2011. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the N.C.T.E. has submitted that the present Principal was appointed a month after the inspection. He also submitted that the over-all assessment is in general terms whereas the particulars available under various heads in the enquiry report clearly disclose that number of teaching faculties was inadequate and not of required standard. He further submitted that the college itself took the stand that the space in its present premises under lease was not sufficient as per norms and therefore it had made arrangement to shift the institution to another premises and for the purpose of obtaining permission for shifting , a sum of Rs.40,000/- had been deposited as fee. 11. On going through the relevant materials it is apparent that the college was granted permanent recognition in February, 2006 and June,2007 for B.Ed. and ETE courses respectively. No doubt, there were conditions attached with the recognition order and on some aspects the college appears to have failed to make the required improvement. However the fact that the college had been successfully imparting training to the students and had taken steps for shifting the institution to much larger premises are sure indicators that it had the will and intention for making required improvements. If the deficiencies, as per writ court had crept in at a particular stage, then the college should have been given reasonable accommodation to make required improvement within a reasonable time. Nonetheless the writ court has not interfered with the order of the N.C.T.E. whether original or appellate but has issued certain directions with an observation that the impugned order shall in no manner be an impediment for such fresh consideration. In such circumstances, in our considered view the ends of justice do not require any interference with the order of the writ court. 12. In such circumstances, in our considered view the ends of justice do not require any interference with the order of the writ court. 12. But before parting with the matter arising in these appeals, we are required to address some issues of concern raised by learned counsel for the N.C.T.E. The first issue raised by him is that the nature of order passed by the writ court creates an impression that the matter has been remanded and hence N.C.T.E. may be required to consider granting recognition to the institution with effect from past sessions 2010-11. He has submitted that N.C.T.E. in no case should be forced to grant recognition from a back date when the college was bound not to admit students with effect from sessions 2010-11 in view of impugned decision dated 14.1.2010 of the N.C.T.E. According to him, even if the institution makes the required improvements in all the areas where deficiencies were found earlier, N.C.T.E. should be left free to grant recognition only for further sessions which shall commence subsequent to final decision which may be taken in accordance with directions of the writ court. The second concern expressed by learned counsel for the N.C.T.E. is that the college should have been directed to apply for fresh recognition giving necessary particulars and then N.C.T.E. could have considered such applications on their own merit. According to him, an order of remand in such cases creates unnecessary pressure upon the statutory body to continue with the earlier recognition even if the college is not deserving such recognition in view of deficiencies or deterioration found by the N.C.T.E. 13. So far as the first point is concerned, in absence of any interim order continuing the earlier recognition which was withdrawn by the impugned decision, Section 17 (3) of the Act will apply and the institution has to discontinue the course or Training in teachers education with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the order withdrawing recognition. Section 17-A prohibits admission without recognition. Section 17-A prohibits admission without recognition. Hence, it is clarified that fresh decision by the N.C.T.E. as per order of the writ court will relate only to such future session as may be indicated in the order to be passed by the N.C.T.E. In other words, if the N.C.T.E. accepts that the institution has made required improvement and decides to grant recognition, it shall be free to decide from which session such recognition would be effective. So far as the second point is concerned, since the college had permanent recognition for number of years, the writ court cannot be faulted for directing the N.C.T.E. to take a fresh look in the matter particularly in view of final evaluation of the institution in the last Inspection Report. Such order shall be in the ends of justice specially if the institution makes the desired improvement and meets the short comings within a reasonable time. A statutory body like the N.C.T.E. should not feel any pressure in deciding the relevant issues by a speaking order. 14. So far as the prayer made in C.W.J.C. No. 14609 of 2011 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner/ college has submitted that provisions in section 14 (5) which relate to refusal of recognition to an institution imparting training from before coming into force of the Act and Section 17(3) of the Act clearly indicate that only the academic session next following the date of communication of order withdrawing recognition shall be adversely affected. Admission in such subsequent sessions gets barred by order withdrawing recognition. In the present case admittedly the impugned order has withdrawn recognition from sessions 2010-11 and therefore, according to learned counsel for the college, the students who were admitted and have received training for the sessions 2009-2010 or the students of the earlier sessions cannot be permitted to suffer without any fault of the students or the institution and they must be permitted to fill up the forms and take the examination of the ETE conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board. He further submitted that the University has allowed the students of earlier sessions to take the examination of B.Ed. He further submitted that the University has allowed the students of earlier sessions to take the examination of B.Ed. and in similar circumstances there can be no justification for the Bihar School Examination Board to withhold permission to take the examination of D.Ed./ ETE for students of earlier sessions when the college had the necessary recognition from N.C.T.E. Reliance was placed upon a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya Vs. Subhash Rahangdale, (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 425. Paragraph- 87 of the said judgment, inter alia, reiterates several important directions such as – No recognition can be granted unless the institution satisfies the conditions specified in Section 14 (3 ) (a ) of the Act and Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations and the recognition granted shall operate prospectively; recognition once granted can be withdrawn only under section 17(1) for contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules or the Regulations or order made therein, or any condition subject to which recognition was granted and the withdrawal of recognition would be effective from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the order of withdrawal. In paragraph-88 the Court gave direction to the examining body concerned to declare the result of the students who had been admitted for a particular session because the High Court had held such students to be entitled to take the examination because their cases had been scrutinized by N.C.T.E for that academic session. 15. In the facts of the case, the prayer made in C.W.J.C. No. 14609 of 2011 is allowed to the extent that the Bihar School Examination Board shall supply the requisite forms to the petitioner/college so that the students may take the next ensuing examination of D. Ed./ ETE provided such students have undergone the required training prior to session 2010-11. In other words, the students for the sessions 2009-11 or the students of the earlier sessions, as per Regulations of the Bihar School Examination Board, shall be allowed to take the next ensuing examination. This order shall not give any benefit to the students of the petitioner/ college belonging to later session. In the result, both the appeals are disposed of with observations indicated earlier. However, C.W.J.C. No. 14609 is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.