ORDER : VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. This intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 22nd August, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 12051 of 2018 whereby the said petition has been dismissed and the interim relief granted therein was vacated. 2. The petitioner-appellant is an educational Trust. It runs and manages an Institution by the name of Shree Murlidhar B.Ed. College in district Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institution' in short). The National Council for Teacher Education (in short 'NCTE') granted recognition to the Institution for running B.Ed. Course with an intake of 100 students vide communication dated 27th June, 2005. The Institution continued with imparting the said course for the above intake. In 2015, after the coming of the new Regulations in the year 2014, a revised order was issued by NCTE dated 31st May, 2015 whereby the Institution was permitted to run the B.Ed. Course in two units of 50 students each. 3. In 2016, during inspection and verification of records, the Western Regional Committee (in short 'WRC') noticed certain discrepancies and deficiencies in the Institution and accordingly, issued a show cause notice dated 29-8-2016 calling upon the Institution to submit written representation within 21 days and to provide the documents mentioned therein failing which, appropriate action would be taken for withdrawal of recognition. The Institution submitted its reply dated 12/26-9-2016. After considering the same, the WRC passed a withdrawal order dated 8-9-2017 withdrawing the recognition of the Institution for the B.Ed. Course for both the units from the academic session 2018-2019. The Institution preferred an appeal before the NCTE which came to be allowed vide order dated 13.2.2018 and the matter was remanded to the WRC for taking up a fresh decision. However, in the meanwhile, the order of withdrawal would remain in abeyance. 4. Upon remand, the WRC considered the case file of the Institution in its 291st meeting held on 26th/27th April, 2018. The WRC noticed the deficiencies and observed that with the given infrastructure and human resource, only one unit could be run. However, if the Institution desires to run two units then, the deficiencies be cured within a month. The resolution of WRC dated April 26-27, 2018 at agenda item No. 46 is reproduced below: "The case file was seen. This is case of appeal. However, if the Institution desires to run two units then, the deficiencies be cured within a month. The resolution of WRC dated April 26-27, 2018 at agenda item No. 46 is reproduced below: "The case file was seen. This is case of appeal. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 13.02.2018 remanded the case to WRC and the Institution replied on 08.03.2018. An examination of the file shows that the institution has submitted a staff profile of 1+15 faculty members approved by the Registrar but the list is not submitted in original. Out of these, lecturers from S. Nos. 2-6 do not have NET qualification as required vide notification published on 09.06.2017. Further, lecturers at S. Nos. 3 & 4 do not have the required percentage at PG level. As such, the institution can be recognized for one unit. Secondly, Building Completion Certificate issued by a Government Engineer not submitted in original. If they desire to run two units with additional recruitments, Building Completion Certificate signed from a Government Engineer is also required. Hence, clarification be sought from the institution. Reply should be submitted within one month." 5. In response, the Institution submitted a letter dated 4-5-2018/14-5-2018 requesting for one year's time or minimum of six months to recruit NET qualified teachers. However, with regard to the other deficiencies, it submitted the compliance. The WRC in its next 292nd meeting held on 15th-17th May, 2018 took up the matter of the Institution at agenda item No. 91. After considering the response of the Institution referred to above, it decided to permit the Institution to run the course with one unit only. The above decision of WRC is reproduced below: "The case file was seen. In response to the clarification letter dated 04.05.2018, the institution has submitted a list of 1+15 faculty members approved by the Registrar. However, it is seen that lecturers from S. Nos. 2-6 do not have the NET qualification and therefore are ineligible as per NCTE notification published on 09.06.2017. Hence, permitted to continue with one unit." 6. The decision taken in the above meeting was communicated to the Institution vide letter of the Regional Director dated 19-5-2018. 7. However, it is seen that lecturers from S. Nos. 2-6 do not have the NET qualification and therefore are ineligible as per NCTE notification published on 09.06.2017. Hence, permitted to continue with one unit." 6. The decision taken in the above meeting was communicated to the Institution vide letter of the Regional Director dated 19-5-2018. 7. After the communication of the above decision dated 19-5-2018, the Institution submitted a representation dated 24-5-2018 stating that although earlier they had sought for six months' time, but they had been successful in recruiting NET qualified staff as per NCTE norms which were duly approved by the Registrar of Saurashtra University, Rajkot and, therefore, requested them to continue with two units. The Institution did not receive any response to the said request dated 24-5-2018. It thereafter gave a reminder dated 4-7-2018 and again on 31-7-2018 so that they could admit 50 students for the second unit also for the academic session 2018-2019. At this stage, the Institution approached the High Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 12051 of 2018 praying for the following reliefs: "(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.5.2018 issued by the respondent No. 3 withdrawing the recognition order in B. Ed. Course qua 50 students. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No. 1 to allot 50 students of second unit to the petitioner Institution under the Centralized Admission Process for the B. Ed. Course for the year 2018-19 and/or permit the petitioner to give admission to the students on its own from the open market. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the order dated 19.5.2018 passed by respondent No. 3. (D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 University to allot 50 students of second unit to the petitioner Institution under the Centralized Admission Process for the B. Ed. Course for the year 2018-19 and/or permit the petitioner to give admission to the students on its own from the open market. Course for the year 2018-19 and/or permit the petitioner to give admission to the students on its own from the open market. (E) Be pleased to pass such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper by Your Lordships in the facts and circumstances of the case." 8. The learned Single Judge by order dated 3.8.2018 issued notice and granted interim relief in terms of para 11(D) subject to the condition that the petitioner as also the respondent-University would apprise the students taking such admission that the same would remain subject to outcome of communication dated 31.7.2018 addressed to the Regional Director, NCTE (WRC) and also that of the present petition. The interim order dated 3-8-2018 is reproduced below: "Notice returnable on 20.9.2018. Meanwhile, relief in terms of para 11(D) is granted on condition that the respondent-University and the petitioner shall apprise the students that their admission will remain subject to outcome of communication dated 31.7.2018 addressed by the petitioner to the Regional Director, NCTE (WRC), Bhopal and also the present petition. Direct service today is permitted." 9. In terms of the interim order, the Institution admitted 50 students of the second unit for the B.Ed. Course for the academic session 2018-19 and such students have completed their first year course of two semesters and are presently pursuing the third semester of their course. It appears that the learned Single Judge in its order dated 20-9-2018 recorded that an appeal was pending before the competent authority and accordingly, adjourned the matter for three months to be listed on 20-12-2018. The interim order granted was also extended. The said order is reproduced below: "The learned advocate for the petitioner states at bar that the appeal is pending before the competent authority. Hence, S. O. to 20.12.2018. Interim relief granted earlier to continue till then." 10. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the matter on merits, dismissed the Special Civil Application vide judgment and order dated 22-8-2019 which is impugned in the present appeal. In the judgment, it is recorded that the factum relating to pending appeal before the competent authority had been wrongly incorporated in the order dated 20.9.2018 under bona fide mistake as the counsel for the petitioner submitted that she had never made such a statement. 11. We have heard Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. In the judgment, it is recorded that the factum relating to pending appeal before the competent authority had been wrongly incorporated in the order dated 20.9.2018 under bona fide mistake as the counsel for the petitioner submitted that she had never made such a statement. 11. We have heard Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Trusha Patel, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 1-Saurashtra University is only a proforma party as the decision under challenge is of the WRC of NCTE. 12. At the outset, Ms. Trusha Patel, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has vehemently contended as a preliminary objection that the remedy available to the appellant was to file an appeal under section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 and as such, the appellant having statutory remedy available against the withdrawal of recognition of one unit (50 students) of B.Ed. Course, the Special Civil Application challenging the order of WRC and the present appeal would not be maintainable. It is also her submission that WRC having taken the decision had become functus officio and therefore also, it was a completely futile exercise by the appellant in approaching the WRC by way of representations. 13. In response, Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this preliminary objection would not have any force inasmuch as the decision was to be taken by the WRC and the appellant having rectified the defects pointed out in the decision of WRC dated April 26-27, 2018 within a period of one month allowed by the said decision, the representation of the appellant dated 24th May, 2018 and its reminders dated 4th July, 2018 and 31st July, 2018 ought to have been given due weightage and consideration by the WRC itself instead of relegating the appellant to the NCTE. 14. It is also submitted that filing of the appeal would have been a futile exercise inasmuch as the appellant having removed the defects within the time allowed, even if the appeal was filed, the same would have been remanded back to WRC for verification and reconsideration. There was no finding of the WRC which the appellant would be assailing in appeal rather it was the curation of the deficiencies pointed out by the WRC which was to be considered by the WRC itself. 15. There was no finding of the WRC which the appellant would be assailing in appeal rather it was the curation of the deficiencies pointed out by the WRC which was to be considered by the WRC itself. 15. It is also submitted that the defects have been completely removed and rectified. The WRC by not responding to the representation dated 24th May, 2018 and reminders dated 4th July and 31st July, 2018 failed to exercise the powers vested in it thereby compelling the appellant to approach this Court. 16. It is also submitted that in case WRC had responded to the aforesaid three communications of the appellant, the appellant could have considered filing an appeal or approaching this Court as may have been advised. 17. Having considered the submissions, we may record that in the decision dated April 26-27, 2018, three deficiencies have been pointed out: (i) a deposit of Rs. 7.00 lakhs by way of bank draft was wanting, (ii) the Building Completion Certificate was required to be submitted and (iii) five teachers were said to be not possessing NET qualification and two of these five did not have minimum marks in their post-graduate examination. Insofar as the deposit of Rs. 7.00 lakhs by way of bank draft and the Building Completion Certificate are concerned, the same were submitted along with letter dated 4th of May, 2018. In the same letter, the appellant had requested for one year or minimum six months' time to recruit qualified teachers but before expiry of one month, the appellant made the necessary recruitments of qualified teachers and also got them approved from the Registrar of Saurashtra University and submitted the necessary documents to the WRC along with covering letter dated 24th May, 2018. Thus, apparently, all the three deficiencies pointed out stood removed and rectified. 18. Without going into the question as to whether the WRC having taken the decision in its meeting of 15th-17th May, 2018 had become functus officio so as not to entertain any representation from the appellant and the only remedy available to the appellant would be either to file an appeal under Section 18 of the 1993 Act or to approach this Court in its extra-ordinary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the latter case, the only relief that could be given by the NCTE or the High Court was to remit the matter to the WRC for reconsideration as it is the WRC which is the authority competent to get the verification of documents and take proper decision upon consideration and appreciation of the material placed before it. In the facts of the present case, having prima facie found, based on the contention of the appellant that all the three deficiencies have been completely corrected and removed, in our opinion, no fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the appellant to file an appeal before the NCTE and it would be just and equitable to direct the WRC to reconsider the case of the appellant in the light of the representations referred to above. 19. There is another reason why we do not deem it proper and necessary to relegate the appellant to file an appeal before NCTE. 50 students of the second unit for the B.Ed. Course for the academic year 2018-19 have already completed their two semesters (one year) and are presently pursuing their third semester, their interest in future is at jeopardy. The sooner the matter is thrashed out, the better it would be for these 50 students. 20. We may also record here that Ms. Mamta R. Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant has made a statement upon instructions that for the academic year 2019-20, the Institution has not admitted any students for the second unit nor would it do so. However, if ultimately the appellant succeeds and the WRC accords recognition for the second unit, it would only endeavour to admit students for the second unit of B.Ed. Course for the academic year 2020-2021 and onwards. 21. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, as also the decision of the WRC in its 292nd meeting dated 15th-17th May, 2018 at agenda item No. 91 as communicated vide letter of the Regional Director dated 19th May, 2018 and further direct the WRC to take an appropriate decision afresh after taking into consideration the relevant material that has been provided by the appellant vide its communications dated 4th May, 2018 and 24th May, 2018 and reminders dated 4th July and 31st July, 2018. The above decision may be taken expeditiously considering the future of the students of the second unit of the academic year 2018-2019 who are pursuing their third semester, preferably within a period of three months, on the outer side, from the date of submission of certified copy of this order before the Regional Director, WRC. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 22. Direct service is permitted. 23. In view of the disposal of the main Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application No. 1 of 2019 also stands disposed of.