JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—The petitioner is a degree college affiliated to the Purvanchal University. The petitioner applied for recognition from the National Council for Teachers Education for running B.Ed. classes. The application form was found to be deficient and the petitioner had been called upon to remove the deficiencies. The petitioner contends that the deficiencies were removed and information to that effect has been sent by registered post to the regional office. The request of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that no such document arrived by registered post and, therefore, in the absence of any explanation for removing the deficiencies, the application cannot be entertained. 2. An appeal was filed against the same also stating the same facts that the deficiencies had been removed and information to that effect has been sent by registered post. It was also averred that a photo-stat copy of the receipt of the concerned post office dated 26.6.2009 was also being placed on record. The Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal on the ground that the postage fee as indicated in the receipt is Rs. 22/- whereas the proforma on which the information is to be sent requires a higher postage to be affixed. Sri R.A. Akhtar learned counsel for the respondent submits that even otherwise the information did not reach the Council and further the fact that it was under-stamped was a reason to believe that the information had not been dispatched. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.A. Akhtar learned counsel for the respondent-National Council for Teachers Education. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed to the writ petition and a judgment of this Court in writ petition No. 9094 of 2010 decided on 24.1.2011 has been placed on record to contend that the reason given in the appellate order as well as by the regional authority are erroneous and based on surmises and conjectures for rejecting the application that was submitted on behalf of the petitioner for consideration of recognition. 5. In the opinion of the Court such a reason is based on a hypothesis without there being any facts in relation to the issue except that the receipt was very much on record which has not been disbelieved. 5. In the opinion of the Court such a reason is based on a hypothesis without there being any facts in relation to the issue except that the receipt was very much on record which has not been disbelieved. The petitioner may have dispatched the information by registered post and it is quite possible that the Council may not have received it but that does not necessarily mean that the petitioner has not sent it. An error of a possible non-delivery of the envelope by the postal department cannot be ruled out. If the information had not been received, the Council could have called upon the petitioner to furnish the information again for the purposes of reconsideration. 6. In the circumstances it is not necessary to set aside the impugned order but a fresh direction to the National Council for Teachers Education is hereby issued to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of documents which shall now be produced by the petitioner as narrated in the writ petition before the Council within one month from today. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. ——————