JUDGMENT : SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J. 1. The petitioner Institution has assailed the order dated 5.7.2019 thereby respondent No.2 has rejected the appeal and confirmed the order dated 6.3.2019 passed by respondent No.3 withdrawing the recognition of the petitioner Institution for conduct of B.Ed. Course granted on 21.12.2005 with effect from academic session 2019-2020. 2. It is stated that the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations,2009 came to be amended by Notification dated 28.11.2014 providing for certain revised procedures to be followed in connection with the recognition. In the light of the said regulations, respondent No.3 had called upon the petitioner by way of show-cause notice at Annexure-R to comply with the certain clarifications, rectifications and deficiencies. 3. It is not in dispute that withdrawal of recognition came to be passed as per order dated 6.3.2019. Accordingly, recognition of B.Ed. course to the petitioner Institution for the academic year 2019-20 came to be withdrawn and appeal having been filed against the said impugned order dated 6.3.2019 also was rejected by respondent No.2 as per order dated 5.7.2019 thereby confirming the order of respondent No.3 withdrawing the recognition. 4. It is submitted that in the appeal that was preferred against the order of respondent No.3, (appeal memorandum copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-V), explanation has been furnished with respect to each of the deficiencies that were pointed out in the show-cause notice. It is further submitted that respondent No.3-appellate authority has rejected the appeal and while doing so has merely observed that the show-cause notice not having been replied, no grounds were made out in the appeal. 5. It is further submitted that while exercising the power of appeal, the Appellate Authority ought to have taken note of the compliance of the deficiencies as pointed out by the petitioner Institution and disposal of the appeal does not reflect such consideration and accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order of respondent No.2 is required to be set-aside and matter be remitted back for fresh consideration in the light of the information i.e. available with the respondent authority. It is further submitted that the petitioner Institution is willing to furnish such other material as may be required by the appellate authority to decide the appeal. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner Institution is willing to furnish such other material as may be required by the appellate authority to decide the appeal. 6. It is to be noted that the order of withdrawal of recognition was not communicated to respondent No.6 University and respondent No.6 not having taken note of the same has proceeded as if the petitioner Institution possessed recognition. While passing order on appeal, respondent No.2 has taken note of non6 furnishing of the reply to the show-cause notice issued. The said authority has failed to address rectification of the deficiencies as pointed out by the petitioner in the appeal and accordingly, the appellate authority appears to have disposed of the appeal without applying its mind as regards to the compliance with the various deficiencies stated to have been complied as on the date of the appeal itself. 7. Looking into the consequences of the impugned order on the petitioner Institution, it would be appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to reconsider the appeal afresh in accordance with law. 8. The counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 however submits that they are open of reconsideration of the appeal in accordance with law. 9. In the light of the said submission, it is necessary and appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to dispose of the appeal expeditiously within a period not later than thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the admission for B.Ed. Course for the academic year 20190-20 has not yet commenced. Hence, it is submitted that order of withdrawal of recognition be kept in abeyance while reconsidering the appeal. 11. The schedule for process of recognition, affiliation and admission is uniformly applicable to all the institutions and is required to be strictly adhered to as stipulated in the event of the appeal being allowed. It is open for the petitioner Institution to represent before the concerned authority with respect to availing benefit of affiliation and recognition for the academic year 2019-2020 in accordance with law in the event the appeal is allowed. 12. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that there has been number of instances where respondent No.2 while pending consideration of the appeal has kept the order of withdrawal of the recognition in abeyance. 12. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that there has been number of instances where respondent No.2 while pending consideration of the appeal has kept the order of withdrawal of the recognition in abeyance. However, the petitioner is at liberty to place the matter before respondent No.2 and seek for appropriate relief in that regard. 13. In the light of the above, petition is disposed off. The order dated 5.7.2019 at Annexure-AA passed by respondent No.2 is set-aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the appeal afresh within a period not later than thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in accordance with law. 14. Needless to state that the question of affiliation of University is to be considered on disposal of the appeal by respondent No.2.