Arun Tandon, J.— The petitioner is stated to have established an institution in the year 2007. The institution at the relevant time was not granted any recognition. It continued to be purely a private institution. With the passing of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the petitioner is stated to have made an application for grant of recognition under the said U.P. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules of 2011 for the first time in June, 2011. Since the application of the petitioner was not being considered, he filed civil misc. writ petition no.50153 of 2012, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2012 with the observation that the application of the petitioner may be considered in accordance with the Act of 2009 and the rules framed thereunder. The District Basic Education Officer, Aligarh vide order dated 17.11.2012 has rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of recognition after noticing six discrepancies in the institution (page 32 of the present writ petition). It has been recorded that the institution does not have separate washroom girl/boy students as well as for teachers and out of five teachers said to be working in the institution, three are untrained. The institution is being run in a rented premises and it does not have sufficient accommodation for running of recognised institution and lastly that the total number of students admitted in Class-VIII is only 37, which is much below than that prescribed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order impugned is bad for following reasons (a) that the Basic Education Officer, Aligarh himself has recorded that the recognition under the Rules of 2011 is to be granted on the recommendation of three member Committee as per the Government Order dated 19.05.2011 of which the District Basic Education Officer is a member Secretary and that without approval of the Committee as aforesaid, no recognition can be granted by the District Basic Education Officer. He, therefore, submits that the order of the District Basic Education Officer in absence of the recommendation of the Committee is bad. He, therefore, submits that the order of the District Basic Education Officer in absence of the recommendation of the Committee is bad. In respect of the deficiency as noted above, he points out that under Section 19 of the Act of 2009 makes a provision for grant of three years time to the institutions, which are already in existence for satisfying the requirement of the Act within a period of three years from the date of such commencement to remove the deficiencies, in respect of teachers reference is made to Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act of 2009, which provides that the teachers already employed will acquire requisite qualifications within a period of five years of the notification. He, therefore, submits that the order impugned even otherwise is not sustainable in the eyes of law. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the records. In my opinion, the petitioner had made an application for grant of recognition with the enforcement of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the Rules 2011. Up to the relevant period, the petitioner institution had no recognition from any statutory body. The said recognition is being asked for by the petitioner for the first time under the Right to Information Act and the Rules of 2011. The application of the petitioner has to be processed in accordance with the Rules of 2011 framed by the State of U.P. in exercise of power under Section 38 of the Act of 2009. The State Government has taken a policy decision in the matter of grant of new recognition as per Rule 11 of the Rules of 2011, which specifically provides that the Zila Shiksha Adhikari shall conduct a site inspection of each school and shall satisfy whether it fulfills the norms and standards under the conditions mentioned in Rule (I) within three months of the receipt of the self declaration. The report is to be considered and it is only on confirmation of the norms, standards and the conditions specified that the District Basic Education Officer can grant recognition. The report is to be considered and it is only on confirmation of the norms, standards and the conditions specified that the District Basic Education Officer can grant recognition. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 11 of the 2011 Rules reads as follows :- "(6) Schools, which do not conform to the norms, standards and conditions mentioned in sub-rule (1) even after three years from the commencement of the Act, shall cease to function." From a joint reading of the Act of 2009 and the Rules of 2011, it is apparently clear that recognition of an institution under the Rules of 2011 can be granted only after it satisfies the norms as per sub-rule (1), i.e. the condition of recognition laid down by the State Government. It is not in dispute that the State Government itself has laid down the norms for grant of recognition under the Government Order dated 19.05.2011. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner does not satisfy the norms and conditions so laid down by the State Government in the matter of recognition of the institution. It is thus clear that unless and until the petitioner institution complies with the norms prescribed, there can be no recognition under the Rules of 2011. Section 19 and 23 of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, are to be read with sub-rule (6) of Rule 11 of the Rules of 2011. It is abundantly clear that any institution recognised earlier or not if it does not satisfy the norms of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 read with the Rules of 2011, shall cease to function after three years of the commencement of the Act. Thus, there are two contingencies contemplated under the Act, 2009 and the Rules 2011 (a) grant of recognition under the Act of 2009 and the Rules of 2011; and (b) continuance of the institution which do not satisfy the essential norms and standards of the Act of 2009 and the Rules of 2011. The petitioner institution can continue for a period of three years from the commencement of the Act with the condition that it may remove the deficiency, but the institution cannot insist that it must be granted recognition and thereafter it will remove the deficiency within time permitted because such is not the intention of the Act. The petitioner institution can continue for a period of three years from the commencement of the Act with the condition that it may remove the deficiency, but the institution cannot insist that it must be granted recognition and thereafter it will remove the deficiency within time permitted because such is not the intention of the Act. An institution is to be recognised only on satisfaction of the norms and conditions prescribed. However, actual cessation of the working of the institution, which do not satisfy the requirement, which may have been recognised earlier by the State authorities or not is to be affected after three years of the enforcement of the Act and this period of three years is the grace period provided to the institution to remove the deficiency. It is not the grace period for removing the deficiencies thereafter getting the institution recognised under the Act, 2009 read with Rules of 2011. In view of what has been held above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. ____________