Judgment :- 1. Since the issues involved in all the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed. 2. The petitioners are colleges imparting one year degree course, namely, Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) and also imparting one year degree course, namely, Master of Education (M.Ed.). These colleges were granted recognition by the National Council for Teacher Education Act for imparting B.Ed. and M.Ed. courses. 3. When these colleges were granted recognition, there was no regulation framed under the National Council for Teacher Education Act for getting accreditation from the National Assessment and Accreditation Council, (hereinafter referred to as "the NAAC") for granting recognition. The National Council for Teacher Education (hereafter referred to as "the NCTE") made Regulations, namely, the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2009, in exercise of its powers under Section 32(2) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. 4. We are concerned with Regulation 8(5) of the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations 2009 and the same is extracted hereunder. "5.) An institution that has been granted additional intake in Bachelor of Education and Bachelor of Physical Education teacher training courses after promulgation of the Regulations 2005 i.e. the 13th day of January 2006 shall have to get itself accredited by National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), with a Letter Grade B under the new grading system developed by NAAC, on or before the 1st day of April 2010 failing which the additional intake granted shall stand withdrawn with effect from the academic session 2010-2011. Similarly, all institutions having a Master of Education and Master of Physical Education courses shall have to get NAAC Accreditation with at least a Letter Grade B on or before the 1st day of April 2012, failing which Master of Education or Master of Physical Education recognition granted to the Institutions shall stand withdrawn with effect from the academic session 2012-2013." 5. As per Clause 8(5) of the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations 2009, the Institutions, that were granted additional intake in B.Ed., were directed to get accreditation by the NAAC with a Letter Grade B on or before the 1st day of April 2010 and Institutions, that were granted recognition for imparting Master of Education, were to get the NAAC accreditation with at least a Letter Grade B on or before the 1st day of April 2012. If these institutions failed to get the NAAC's accreditation, the recognition given to these institutions shall stand withdrawn with effect from the academic session 2012-2013. 6. The cut-off date of 1.4.2010, that was fixed for additional intake in B.Ed. course, as prescribed in Regulation 8(5), was also extended to 1.4.2012, as in the case of M.Ed. course and the same is not in dispute. 7. In view of the Regulation 8(5) of the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations 2009, directing the colleges imparting teacher education to get the NAAC's accreditation before 1.4.2012, the Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University wrote a letter dated 25.1.2012 to the petitioners colleges directing them to get accreditation before 1.4.2012 from the NAAC. Otherwise, they should not admit the students under B.Ed. (Additional Intake) and M.Ed. courses from the academic year 2012-13. 8. As per the New Methodology of Assessment and Accreditation, a booklet issued by the NAAC, the clause 2.2.2 states that the applications to the NAAC shall be through on-line format. 9. According to the petitioners, the on-line system of the NAAC was not in operation from 1.1.2012, until the 2nd week of August 2012 and therefore, they are not able to make applications to the NAAC for accreditation. 10. While so, the Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University issued individual letters to the petitioners colleges during the months of July/August/September 2012, requesting the petitioners not to admit the students under B.Ed. (Additional Intake) and M.Ed. degree courses from the academic year 2012-13. 11. Since, they failed to obtain the NAAC's accreditation before 1.4.2012, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions to quash these orders of the University and for a direction to approve the students of M.Ed. course and additional intake course of B.Ed. of the petitioners Institutions for the academic year 2012-13. 12. degree courses from the academic year 2012-13. 11. Since, they failed to obtain the NAAC's accreditation before 1.4.2012, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions to quash these orders of the University and for a direction to approve the students of M.Ed. course and additional intake course of B.Ed. of the petitioners Institutions for the academic year 2012-13. 12. While admitting these writ petitions, this Court granted interim stay of the operation of the order of the University, that was challenged in these writ petitions. 13. The NCTE filed a counter affidavit in W.P.No.23392 of 2012. In the said counter affidavit it is averred that the University has a right to withdraw the affiliation, if the petitioners colleges failed to get the NAAC's accreditation before 1.4.2012, as contemplated under Regulation 8(5) of the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations 2009. 14. The Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University filed counter in all the cases. It is averred that the University took action based on the Regulation 8(5) of the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations 2009. 15. The NAAC also filed counter in all the cases. In the said counter affidavit, it is admitted that the e-System was not functioning from 1.1.2012 to the 2nd week of August 2012, due to up gradation of the system. Hence, the NAAC did not receive applications from the petitioners in the said period and when the e-System become operational, the petitioners colleges made applications and the NAAC is processing those applications. As far as the petitioners in W.P.No.26107 of 2012, W.P.No.26471 of 2012, and W.P. Nos. 26070 of 2012, are concerned, those colleges made applications in the months of December, August and July 2011 respectively for accreditation and those applications are under process by the NAAC. 16. Heard the learned counsels for both sides. 17. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners had submitted that not obtaining the NAAC's accreditation before 1.4.2012, is not their fault. They have brought to the notice of this Court the counter affidavit of the NAAC admitting that the e-System was not functioning from 1.1.2012 upto the 2nd week of August 2012. In these circumstances, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for no fault of theirs. 18. They have brought to the notice of this Court the counter affidavit of the NAAC admitting that the e-System was not functioning from 1.1.2012 upto the 2nd week of August 2012. In these circumstances, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for no fault of theirs. 18. It is further submitted that the NCTE issued a letter dated 13.7.2012, stating that if the applications were filed before 1.4.2012, and the NAAC was not able to grant accreditation before 1.4.2012, no action need be taken for withdrawal of approval/ affiliation in respect of those institutions. 19. It is also submitted that the same benefit shall be given to the petitioners colleges, particularly, when the NAAC has admitted that all the petitioners have applied through on-line immediately when the same was available from the second week of August 2012. 20. It is also submitted that the petitioners cannot make applications directly and the only way to make applications to the NAAC is through on-line and the same is accepted by the NAAC and therefore, the petitioners cannot be blamed. 21. The learned counsel for the NCTE has submitted that the petitioners institutions did not make applications to the NAAC before 1.4.2012 and therefore, they cannot get benefit of the order dated 13.7.2012 of NCTE. According to him, if the University acted on the Regulations of the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations 2009, the University is perfectly correct. 22. The learned counsel for the NAAC has submitted that the e-System was not functioning from 1.1.2012 to the 2nd week of August 2012, due to upgradation. He has fairly submitted that the petitioners cannot be faulted for not making the applications before 1.4.2012, in view of the said situation. It is also admitted that even the applications made earlier by some of the petitioners colleges are still pending consideration, as the NAAC takes about 18 to 24 months for processing the applications for accreditation. 23. I have considered the submissions on either side. 24. Regulation 8(5) of the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations 2009 contemplates that the colleges imparting M.Ed., course and the colleges, that were granted recognition for B.Ed., additional intake, shall obtain the NAAC accreditation before 1.4.2012. 25. It is true that if no accreditation was obtained, the recognition shall be withdrawn by NCTE. 26. 24. Regulation 8(5) of the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations 2009 contemplates that the colleges imparting M.Ed., course and the colleges, that were granted recognition for B.Ed., additional intake, shall obtain the NAAC accreditation before 1.4.2012. 25. It is true that if no accreditation was obtained, the recognition shall be withdrawn by NCTE. 26. The learned counsel for NCTE has admitted that no order was passed under Regulation 8(5) of the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations 2009 withdrawing the recognition to the petitioners colleges for not obtaining the NAAC accreditation. 27. It is also relevant as stated above, NCTE has not chosen to withdraw the recognition to the petitioners colleges. It is also a fact that NCTE issued a letter dated 13.7.2012, stating that 391 applications are under process at various stages with the NAAC for accreditation and that the 17th meeting of NCTE committee, that was held on 9.7.2012, decided that no action need be taken for withdrawal of recognition in the cases of those institutions, whose applications are pending for the NAAC's accreditation, i.e., the Institutions, that did not obtain accreditation before 1.4.2012 as per Regulations 8(5), were put on notice through the letter dated 13.7.2012 that no action would be taken against those institutions, though 8(5) of the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations 2009 provided for obtaining the NAAC accreditation before 1.4.2012. 28. In my view that if the NCTE decided not to withdraw the recognition in the cases of institutions, whose applications are pending consideration with the NAAC for accreditation and the accreditation was not obtained by those institutions before 1.4.2012, the same benefit shall be extended to the petitioners colleges also, particularly, when the NAAC has filed the counter affidavit before this Court stating that the e-System was not operational from 1.1.2012 onwards upto the second week of August 2012. 29. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter affidavit of the NAAC are extracted hereunder. "3.) It is true that regarding the averments made in paragraph No.10 of the affidavit, it is true that there was some technical error in the web port of this respondent and inspite of the best efforts by this respondent it took some time to get ready with the same. "3.) It is true that regarding the averments made in paragraph No.10 of the affidavit, it is true that there was some technical error in the web port of this respondent and inspite of the best efforts by this respondent it took some time to get ready with the same. 4.) I submit that, regarding the averments made in paragraph No.12 of the affidavit, it is true that the petitioner institution had sent an application on 15.8.2012 and the same is pending with this respondent for further process. In fact, a communication was also sent to the petitioner institution on 23.11.2012 asking them to submit further documents to enable the processing of accreditation speedier." 30. The only reason in the impugned order is that the petitioners did not obtain the NAAC's accreditation before 1.4.2012. The same was impossible, since the applications could not be made due to the non functioning of the e-System of the NAAC. The same is also admitted by the learned counsel for the NAAC and also an affidavit to that effect is also filed. 31. It is not the case of the University that those colleges did not have the required faculty members and there is any other deficiency in the colleges. Hence, I am of the view that the University is not correct in directing the Management not to admit students for M.Ed., and additional intake in B.Ed., courses, when the colleges have recognition to conduct those courses from NCTE. The only reason in the impugned order is, not obtaining the NAAC's accreditation before 1.4.2012. 32. I have come to the conclusion that the petitioners cannot be faulted for not obtaining NAAC accredition before 1.4.2012. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the same are quashed and the University is directed to approve the students admitted in M.Ed., and additional intake in B.Ed., courses for the year 2012-13 in the petitioners colleges, if those students come under the strength, as sanctioned by the NCTE for the year 2012-13. In fact, as stated above, the NCTE issued a letter dated 13.7.2012 for amendment to clause 8(5) of the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations 2009 and also not to take any action for not getting NAAC's accreditation before 1.4.2012. 33. In fact, as stated above, the NCTE issued a letter dated 13.7.2012 for amendment to clause 8(5) of the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations 2009 and also not to take any action for not getting NAAC's accreditation before 1.4.2012. 33. The learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that unless the approval for admission of students in M.Ed. and additional intake in B.Ed. course in the petitioners colleges is granted at the earliest, the students would be put to great difficulty, as they could not be sent for teacher training during the month of February 2013. They had sought for an order of approval from the University forthwith for the said purpose. 34. In the said circumstances, the University is directed to approve the admission of M.Ed., students and the students in B.Ed., additional intake in the petitioners colleges for the year 2012-13, within a period of three weeks from today. No costs. Connected M.P. Nos are closed.