JUDGMENT SANJU PANDA, J. The Petitioner, Dakshin Dinajpur B. Ed College represented through its Secretary, has filed this Writ Petition challenging the action of the Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Bhubaneswar, Opp. Party No. 1 in not granting recognition as per the Regulation of the National Council for Teacher Education (in short, 'NCTE') & praying for granting of recognition as per the said NCTE Regulation for the session 2012-2013. 2. The facts leading to the present Writ Petition are as follows: The Petitioner, a private educational institution, was established in the year 2009 in the name & style "Dakshin Dinajpur B. Ed College" situated in the village Fulbari of Dakshin Dinajpur in the State of West Bengal. The Petitioner- institution has been imparting Bachelor of Education (B. Ed) Programme. In terms of Sections 14 & 15 of the NCTE Act, 1993, the Petitioner-institution submitted an application to the Eastern Regional Committee of NCTE on 30.10.2009 for grant of recognition. On the basis of scrutiny of the documents submitted by the Petitioner-institution & the report of the visiting team, the Eastern Regional Committee in its 115th meeting decided that the Petitioner-institution has adequate financial resources accommodation, library & laboratory as prescribed under the norms & standards of the Act. The Petitioner-institution has also fulfilled all other conditions relating to inftastructural facilities required for proper functioning of a teacher education course. While the matter stood thus, Opp. Party No. 1 issued a letter of intent on 17.3.2011 vide letter No. F.ERC/NCTE/2010/ERCAPP333/B. Ed. requesting the Petitioner-institution to form a Selection Committee for selection of' Faculty/Staff in order to satisfy Clause 7(9) of the NCTE (Regulation Norms & Procedure) Regulation, 2009 so that recognition could be granted under Section 7(11) of the said Regulation. Accordingly, the Petitioner-institution had given its reply on 27.6.2011 fulfilling all the requirements as directed & also sent a similar letter to the Registrar of Gour Banga (Affiliating) University to nominate Experts Committee for recruitment of faculty in English & Mathematics subjects. Opp. Party No. 1 issued a letter on 18.8.2011 asking the Petitioner-institution to submit the documents relating to the appointment of faculty in English & Mathematics subjects along with the documents pertaining to qualification, percentage of marks, teaching experience, etc. countersigned by Registrar of Affiliating University. Accordingly, the Petitioner-institution on 8.9.2011 apprised Opp. Opp. Party No. 1 issued a letter on 18.8.2011 asking the Petitioner-institution to submit the documents relating to the appointment of faculty in English & Mathematics subjects along with the documents pertaining to qualification, percentage of marks, teaching experience, etc. countersigned by Registrar of Affiliating University. Accordingly, the Petitioner-institution on 8.9.2011 apprised Opp. Party No. 1 regarding fulfillment of the requirements of NCTE & submitted all the pertinent documents. Again, Opp. Party No. 1 on 5.10.2011 asked the Petitioner-institution to submit the list of the qualified faculty duly appointed as per the provision of NCTE Regulation. The Petitioner-institution immediately complied with the same on 15.10.2011 & submitted a detailed list of faculty staff as per the prescribed format indicating qualification, percentage of marks & teaching experience etc. In the 129th meeting of NCTE held on 20-21/1212011, it was observed that the Government of West Bengal be requested to submit a report in connection with the selection of staff of the Petitioner-institution. In furtherance of the said observation, the Petitioner-institution intimated Opp. Party No.1 that it has fulfilled the requirements as prescribed & accordingly NOC was granted in its favour. On 13.9.2010, Opp. Party No.1, while considering all the documents submitted by the Petitioner-institution, in its 135th meeting observed that the Principal of the Petitioner-institution was required to have 55% in both B. Ed. & M. Ed. Education as per the NCTE Regulation, 2009. Thus, the Principal was not qualified as the marks obtained in B. Ed Degree are 494 out of 900 which is less than the required 55% marks. The Principal of the Petitioner-institution is only one mark short of the required qualification which is 54.88% & is marginally less than required 55% of marks. Therefore, the decision of Opp. Party No.1 disqualifying the Petitioner-institution is unreasonable & illegal. The Principal of the Petitioner-institution was having all the requisite qualification & had obtained B. Ed. Degree having 54.88% of marks that is almost equivalent to 55% which is the qualifying percentage to be appointed as Principal. The said rounding up marks to 55% will not cause prejudice to the claims & rights of any person. Therefore, the Petitioner-institution is entitled to get recognition as per the NCTE Regulation. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner institution has fulfilled all the requisite eligibility criteria for getting recognition from NCTE which was arbitrarily denied. The said rounding up marks to 55% will not cause prejudice to the claims & rights of any person. Therefore, the Petitioner-institution is entitled to get recognition as per the NCTE Regulation. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner institution has fulfilled all the requisite eligibility criteria for getting recognition from NCTE which was arbitrarily denied. Therefore, interference of this Court is warranted in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Opp. Parties have field their counter affidavit taking a stand that in their 135th meeting, they sought clarification from the institutions as to whether the appointment of the Principal is Justified as per the norms prescribed under the Regulation & if so, then the Petitioner-institution shall give the reply within 30 days. Instead of submitting the reply, the Petitioner-institution should not have approached this Court for redressal of its grievance. They have further taken a stand that Opp. Party No. 1 has issued a letter on 20.7.2012 to the Petitioner-institution seeking the above clarification within the aforesaid period & thereafter the Regional Committee shall take a decision in the matter. Therefore, the Writ Petition is premature & is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned Counsel for the Opp. Parties submitted that the application of the Petitioner-institution is pending consideration. The aforesaid Regulation prescribes the qualification of the Principal & as per the said Regulation, the Petitioner-institution is required to appoint the Principal having 55% of marks in both B. Ed. with M.A (Education). Since the Petitioner-institution has not appointed the Principal having the said requisite qualification, the rounding up theory is not applicable. In support of his contention, he has cited the decision of this Court in the case of Lokesh Chandra Pradhan v. State of Orissa & others reported in 89 (2000) CLT 73 & the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of St. John's Teacher Training Institute (for Women), Madurai, etc. etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu & others, etc. etc. reported in AIR 1994 SC 43 & State of Orissa & anr. John's Teacher Training Institute (for Women), Madurai, etc. etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu & others, etc. etc. reported in AIR 1994 SC 43 & State of Orissa & anr. v. Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 wherein the Apex Court, emphasizing on the appointment & recruitment of the teaching staff, has held that necessity of possession of prescribed qualifications by teachers for the purpose of grant-in-aid to private educational institutions is necessary unless the teachers themselves possess a good academic record/minimum qualifications prescribed as an eligibility, standard of education cannot be maintained/ enhanced. Person possessing Master's degree with less than 54% marks will not be eligible for the said post. In the absence of an enabling provision in the statute or rules concerned, requisite qualification could not be relaxed, much less in disregard of object of statute & after initiation of selection process. He further submitted that Opp. Party No. 1 has rightly issued the said letter dated 20th July, 2012 to the Petitioner-institution & In view of the said settled position of law as decided by the Apex Court, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa & another v. Damodar Nayak & another reported in AIR 1997 SC 2071 wherein the Apex Court taking into account the Resolution dated September 13, 1985 which prescribes the qualification for recruitment of Lecturers of affiliated Colleges which indicates that "candidate not holding an M.Phil degree should possess a high second class Master's degree, i.e., 54% marks & a second class Honors/Pass in the B.A./B.Com./B.Sc. examination has held that securing 53.9% marks which is almost equivalent to-54% of marks, the Respondent therein is eligible to get the benefit as he was possessing the requisite qualification. Applying the same principle, in the present case, since the Principal of the Petitioner-institution has obtained 54.88% of marks which is almost equivalent to 55% of marks & only one mark is short, the same should be treated as 55% of marks. 7. This Court considered the above rival submissions of the parties & the decision of the Apex Court in the case of St. 7. This Court considered the above rival submissions of the parties & the decision of the Apex Court in the case of St. John's Teacher Training Institute (for Women), Maduri (supra) wherein the Apex Court considered the action of the State Government in not granting recognition to the institution on the ground that it has failed to satisfy the conditions for grant of recognition as provided under the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition & Payment of Grants) Rules, 1977 as amend thereunder. Keeping in view the National Policy of Education, the Government of Tamil Nadu has published, a revised syllabus for the diploma in teacher education course, in the Government Gazette of August 15, 1990. The aims & objectives of the said syllabus & curriculum as given by the State of Tamil Nadu are as under: "A sound Programme of Elementary Teacher Education is inevitable for the qualitative improvement of Education. Education must become an effective instrument of social change & the part played by the teacher should be suitable & significant for this purpose. The gap between the Teacher Education curriculum & the school curriculum has to be minimized for enabling the teachers to act as agents of social change which necessitates that the education imparted in schools has relevant to the personal as well as social life of individuals & to "the" needs & aspirations of the people. In order to be a catalyst in the process of developing a citizen who is productive & who believes in social justice-& national integration, the teacher himself needs to become such a citizen, through appropriate learning experience." The Apex Court taking into consideration the above has held that the Court cannot go into the question as to whether a Teachers Training Institute should be set up on a campus consisting of 10 acres or 5 acres. It is also not for this Court to lay down the sizes of the class rooms, laboratories, number of toilets or the number of books to be kept in the library. It is entirely for the State Government to law down the requirements of a teachers training institute-campus. The policy is based on the guidelines issued by the Central Government from time to time & upheld the decision of the High Court regarding need for maintaining very high standards of Education, Sports, administration & maintenance of the Teachers Training Institutes. It is entirely for the State Government to law down the requirements of a teachers training institute-campus. The policy is based on the guidelines issued by the Central Government from time to time & upheld the decision of the High Court regarding need for maintaining very high standards of Education, Sports, administration & maintenance of the Teachers Training Institutes. These Institutions are established with the avowed object of training teachers & educationists who have to shoulder the responsibility of moulding the nation. The Teachers Training Institutes are meant to teach children of impressionable age & we cannot let loose on the innocent & unwary children, teachers who have not received proper & adequate training. True they will be required to pass the examination but that may not be enough. Training for a certain minimum period in a properly organized & equipped Training Institute is probably essential before a teacher may be duly launched. The Apex Court further held that the institutions shall have to comply with the Recognition Rules to enable them to earn recognition. 8. In the case of State of Orissa & another v. Mamata Mohanty (supra), the Apex Court considered regarding recruitment of the teaching staff & held that possessing the below prescribed standards is not entitled to grant-in-aid. Therefore, ratio decided in those two aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 9. In the present case, the question is whether one mark short from the prescribed qualification to possess 55% of the mark in B. Ed. & M.Ed. Education is a disqualification or it will be considered almost the same prescribed qualification of 55% of marks which is not amounting to relax the prescribed qualification. The Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa & another v. Damodar Nayak & another (supra) has held that 53.9% of marks are almost equivalent to 54% of marks. Therefore, the ratio decided in State of Orissa & another v. Damodar Nayak & another (supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the plea of the Petitioner institution is that the Principal has secured 54.88% of marks which is almost equivalent to 55% of marks. Therefore, one mark short is almost equivalent to 55% of marks & the same is not amounting to relax the prescribed qualification. 10. In the present case, the plea of the Petitioner institution is that the Principal has secured 54.88% of marks which is almost equivalent to 55% of marks. Therefore, one mark short is almost equivalent to 55% of marks & the same is not amounting to relax the prescribed qualification. 10. Considering the above & since 54.88% of marks is almost equivalent to 55% of marks & only one mark. is short & no other persons are available in the field to be aggrieved or prejudiced & this is not a case to eliminate other candidates on the basis of the mark, this Court directs the Opp. Parties to consider the application of the Petitioner-institution for grant of recognition to the Petitioner-institution as it has fulfilled all" other criteria as prescribed by NCTE. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of pronouncement of the Judgment. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.