Judgment : Petitioner No.1 is an Educational Society, under whose management petitioner No.2 is functioning. It made an application for establishment of petitioner No.2 College for the academic year 2012-13 for running D.El.Ed course. Respondent No.2 has communicated certain deficiencies to petitioner No.1 vide letter dated 29.12.2011. Petitioner No.1 submitted compliance report dated 29.02.2012. Not satisfied with the said report, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice, dated 15.05.2012. Petitioner No.1 submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice on 04.06.2012. In its meeting held on 31.07.2012, respondent No.2 has rejected the application of petitioner No.1 and issued proceeding dated 03.09.2012 in that regard. The petitioners filed W.P.No.26400 of 2012 questioning the said rejection order. This Court dismissed the said writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to file a statutory appeal. Accordingly, the petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No.1 against the rejection order. By order dated 03.01.2013, respondent No.1 allowed the appeal and remanded the case to respondent No.2 for consequential action. The petitioners represented to respondent No.2 for complying with the order of respondent No.1. As no further action was taken by respondent No.2, the petitioners filed W.P.No.4954 of 2013 feeling aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.2. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has rejected the petitioners’ application in its meeting held on 11.05.2013 by an order, dated 25.05.2013, under which the rejection was intimated to the petitioners. Assailing the said order, the petitioners filed W.P.No.16561 of 2013, wherein they pleaded that the rejection order passed by respondent No.2 is on repetitive grounds, which were earlier set aside by respondent No.1 in the appeal filed by the petitioners. The petitioners pleaded that at the hearing of W.P.No.16561 of 2013, the counsel for respondent No.2 has undertaken to re-consider the petitioners’ application. However, by order dated 25.07.2013, respondent No.2 passed a fresh order reiterating its earlier decision. After withdrawing W.P.Nos.4954 & 16561 of 2013 with liberty to question the order dated 25.07.2013, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. On behalf of respondent No.2, its Regional Director (I/C) filed its counter affidavit, wherein he has sought to support the grounds on which respondent No.2 has repeatedly rejected the petitioners’ application. After withdrawing W.P.Nos.4954 & 16561 of 2013 with liberty to question the order dated 25.07.2013, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. On behalf of respondent No.2, its Regional Director (I/C) filed its counter affidavit, wherein he has sought to support the grounds on which respondent No.2 has repeatedly rejected the petitioners’ application. It is stated in the counter affidavit that respondent No.1 has merely remanded the case to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration and that, therefore, the latter is well within its right to reject the petitioners’ application if it is satisfied that the petitioners have not complied with the provisions of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and the Regulations made thereunder. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The three grounds on which respondent No.2 has rejected the petitioners’ application in its meeting held on 31.07.2012 and communicated through order, dated 03.09.2012, are as under: “1. Approved blue print of the building plan in the name of the proposed college issued by competent civil authority is not submitted. 2. Notarised land usage certificate from the Revenue divisional office stating that the agriculture land converted to non-agriculture for the educational purpose is not submitted. Proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer not submitted for conversion of land from agricultural to educational purposes. 3. Proof of completion of 3 academic sessions towards B.Ed course which is already run by the institution from the affiliating body/State Govt/examining body is not submitted.” In the order of respondent No.1 passed in the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of respondent No.2, the case of the petitioners with reference to each of the three grounds of rejection was considered as under: “AND WHEREAS Shri K.V.K.Rao, Correspondent, St. Marys D.Ed College, Prakasam, Andhra Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 19.11.2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the building plan cannot be taken in the name of the college before the approval of the college by NCTE as it is the society which has submitted application seeking recognition of D.El.Ed course; The detailed explanation is submitted through hard copy in Memorandum of Appeal; They have submitted the valid notarized land use certificate from the Revenue Divisional Office; The college is proposed to be run under the society but not under another existing B.Ed college as an independent unit. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that appellant Society has been granted recognition for B.Ed course in the year 2006 with an intake of 100 seats; the application for the D.El.Ed course has been submitted by the Society in a different premises situated at a different location. The Khasra / Gata No. mentioned in the land documents of B.Ed course and that of the proposed D.Ed course are different. The appellant referred the NCTE Regulation 8 (7) (iv) which stipulates the society sponsoring the institution shall be required to transfer and vest the title of the land and building in the name of institution within a period of six months from the date of issue of the formal recognition order. AND WHEREAS the Council also noted that the appellant has submitted a Notarized land usage certificate from the Revenue divisional office stating that the agriculture land is converted to non-agriculture for educational purpose and copy of the proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer for conversion of land from agricultural to educational purpose; since the society has applied the D.El.Ed course in a different premises proof of completion of 3 academic sessions towards B.Ed course was not required hence it is not a valid reason of refusal of recognition.” On being satisfied with the petitioners’ explanation, respondent No.1 in conclusion held as under: “AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and remand the case to SRC.” From the order passed by respondent No.1, it is thus evident that it has overturned the decision of respondent No.2 rejecting the petitioners’ application, by accepting the explanation offered by the petitioners on all the three grounds of rejection mentioned by respondent No.2. As rightly pleaded by the petitioners, remand made by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 is not for passing a fresh order by ignoring the order of the appellate authority allowing the appeal. Though it is not properly articulated in the order of the appellate authority, in the context in which it has remanded the case to respondent No.2, the only conclusion that emerges is that the remand is only for the purpose of enabling respondent No.2 to complete further formalities for grant of recognition for commencement of D.El.Ed course. Though it is not properly articulated in the order of the appellate authority, in the context in which it has remanded the case to respondent No.2, the only conclusion that emerges is that the remand is only for the purpose of enabling respondent No.2 to complete further formalities for grant of recognition for commencement of D.El.Ed course. Respondent No.2 has, however, failed to understand the true purport of the order of respondent No.1 and erred under a thorough misconception that it is left with the freedom of rejecting the petitioners’ application again and again by repeating the same grounds, as mentioned in its first order, which was set aside by respondent No.1. Regrettably, respondent No.2 has reiterated the same stand in its counter affidavit also. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has no option except to hold that the repeated rejection of the petitioners’ application by respondent No.2 on the self-same grounds is in the teeth of the order dated 03.01.2013, of respondent No.1. This Court, accordingly, holds that the petitioners are entitled to be granted recognition for commencing D.El.Ed course without reference and regard to the objections, on which its application was rejected by respondent No.2. At the hearing, it has come out that the academic year 2012-13, for which the petitioners made application, has already expired and the new academic year 2013-14 is scheduled to commence in a month or two. The counter affidavit has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & others (2013) 2 SCC 617 ) in support of the plea that no recognition for the year 2013-14 can be granted, as the cut off date, namely, 03.03.2013 for recognition has already been crossed. In my opinion, the said judgment applies to the cases where recognitions are to be granted in ordinary course of things. In the present case, on account of the highly unreasonable and arbitrary conduct of respondent No.2, the petitioners have been deprived of one academic year. Had respondent No.2 complied with the appellate order at the earliest, the petitioners would have been granted recognition on or before the cut off date. The petitioners cannot be put to sufferance due to the reasons, which are solely attributable to respondent No.2. Had respondent No.2 complied with the appellate order at the earliest, the petitioners would have been granted recognition on or before the cut off date. The petitioners cannot be put to sufferance due to the reasons, which are solely attributable to respondent No.2. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it could be grave travesty of justice if the petitioners are not permitted to start the course during the academic year 2013-14. As there is still adequate time left for respondent No.2 for completion of the formalities, this Court is inclined to accept the plea of the petitioners for giving appropriate directions to respondent No.2 to enable them to commence the course in the academic year 2013-14. In the result, the impugned order of respondent No.2 is quashed and the writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- against respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is directed to forthwith consider the application of petitioner No.1 made for the academic year 2012-13 for grant of recognition for the academic year 2013-14 by ignoring the reasons on which its application was rejected. Respondent No.2 shall depute an inspection team and, after completing all the formalities, it shall complete the process of granting recognition to the petitioners before the process of counseling is commenced for the academic year 2013-14. As a sequel, WPMP.No.32284 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.