Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that the students admitted in the petitioner institution in D. Ed. First year in the academic session 2013-14 are not being permitted by the respondent Board to appear in the examination. 3. The petitioner institution was granted recognition to conduct D. Ed. course. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner institution on 4.10.2012 in regard to certain deficiencies, i.e. the Principal did not have requisite experience. Thereafter, vide order dt. 21.2.2013 the recognition of the petitioner institution was withdrawn. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed before the NCTE under Section 18 of the NCTE Act. The appellate authority vide order dt. 28.6.2013 allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the WRC. The appellate authority passed the following order:- AND WHEREAS the Council noted that in the course of personal presentation the appellant informed that they have advertised the post of Principal on 17-04-2013 and they would appoint the Principal as per the NCTE norms within one month. He enclosed a copy of the advertisement published in Navprabhat, Gwalior dated 17-04-2013. the Council noting the submissions of the appellant concluded that the matter deserved to be remanded to the WRC with the direction that the appellant may be given a period of one month time as per the norms and report the same to the WRC, Bhopal and the NCTE. In case he fails to do so, the WRC may reiterate the earlier order of withdrawal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, and after considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the appeal deserved to be remanded to WRC with the direction that the appellant may be given a period of one month time from the date of issue of this order to appoint the Principal who is fully qualified as per the norms and report the same to the WRC, Bhopal and the NCTE. In case he fails to do so, the WRC may reiterate the earlier order of withdrawal. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Ansh College of Education, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh to the WRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above. 4. Thereafter, vide order dt. In case he fails to do so, the WRC may reiterate the earlier order of withdrawal. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Ansh College of Education, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh to the WRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above. 4. Thereafter, vide order dt. 24.2.2014 WRC restored the recognition of the petitioner and passed the following order:- AND WHEREAS, the reply submitted by the institution on 26.11.2013 was placed before WRC in its 201st meeting held from February 19-22, 2014 and the Committee observed that "Against the withdrawal order dated 21.02.2013, the institute had approached the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority remanded the case to WRC, giving one month's time from the appeal order dated 26.08.2013, to the institution to appoint a properly qualified Principal. This has been done by the Society, thus Recognition of the institution stands. Hence, no further action is called for. NOW WHEREAS, the recognition granted to ANSH COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, KADAM SAHABH KI KOTHI, KADAM SAHABH KA BADA, MAMA KA BAZAR, MADHOGAN, LASHKAR, MADHYA PRADESH for conducting D. Ed. course with an annual intake of 50 seats stands. 5. In between in the academic session 2013-14 the State of M.P. after centralized counseling permitted the petitioner institution to admit the students. Admission process was initiated in August 2013. Consequently, the petitioner institution was allowed to admit the students in D. Ed. First Year course in the academic session 2013-14. Those students had taken regular course, however, the Board refused to accept the forms of the students for regular examination. 6. The Respondent No. 1 Board in the reply pleaded that the recognition of the petitioner institution was withdrawn vide order dt. 21.2.2013 from the next academic session. It was restored subsequently by the WRC vide order dt. 24.2.2014. Hence, the petitioner institution had no authority to admit the students in D. Ed. course in the academic session 2013-14. Because the admission of the students was illegal, hence, the Board has not allowed the students to appear in the examination. 7. It is an admitted fact that the recognition granted earlier to the petitioner to conduct D. Ed. course was withdrawn vide order dt. 21.2.2013 in accordance with the provisions of Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993. It was made effective from the end of the academic session next following the date of withdrawal order. 7. It is an admitted fact that the recognition granted earlier to the petitioner to conduct D. Ed. course was withdrawn vide order dt. 21.2.2013 in accordance with the provisions of Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993. It was made effective from the end of the academic session next following the date of withdrawal order. The relevant provision is as under:- Provided further that the order withdrawing or refusing recognition passed by the Regional Committee shall come into force only with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of such order. 8. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner institution preferred an appeal and the appellate authority vide order dt. 26.8.2013 remanded the matter back to the WRC and passed the order as mentioned earlier in this order. 9. From the order of the appellate authority, it is clear that the matter was remanded back to the WRC with observation that the petitioner could be given one month time from the date of issuance of this order to appoint a qualified Principal and in case the petitioner institution fail to do so, WRC may reiterate the earlier order of withdrawal. It clearly means that earlier order of withdrawal was set aside and a time of one month was given to the petitioner to appoint fully qualified Principal, failing which the order of withdrawal could be reiterated. Thereafter the petitioner appointed the Principal and the WRC vide order dt. 24.4.2014 has observed that the recognition of the petitioner institution stands. 10. The petitioner was permitted by the State to admit the students after centralized counseling. When the appellate authority passed the order dt. 26.8.2013, the admission in D. Ed. course for the academic session 2013-14 were open. The appellate authority clearly mentioned in the order that if the petitioner institution fails to appoint a qualified Principal, then the WRC may reiterate the order of withdrawal. It means that at that time the order of withdrawal was set aside. In such circumstances, it can not be said that the petitioner institution had no authority and power or recognition to admit the students. 11. Consequently, petition is allowed. The respondent No. 1 Board is directed to permit the students of the petitioner institute to appear in the examination of D. Ed. In such circumstances, it can not be said that the petitioner institution had no authority and power or recognition to admit the students. 11. Consequently, petition is allowed. The respondent No. 1 Board is directed to permit the students of the petitioner institute to appear in the examination of D. Ed. First year after completing all the formalities and their examination be treated as in accordance with law. 12. No order as to costs.