IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13354 of 2010 Between: Sri Naayanadri College of Education. … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh Education (Training) Department and two others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13354 of 2010 ORDER:- 1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to declare the policy decision of the State of A.P.Education (Training) Department-1st respondent, not to permit any recognition for B.Ed.D.Ed/Private Physical Education/Private Language Pandit training colleges, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and the Standing Counsel for National Council for Teacher Education appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents, fairly submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition is covered by the order dated 16.12.2009 in writ petition No.6712 of 2009. They further stated following the said order, number of writ petitions have been disposed of vide W.P.No.11038 and batch. The relevant portion of the order dated 16.12.2009 in W.P.No.6712 of 2009, reads as under: “It may be true that the State Government as well as the first respondent have reviewed the situation as to the necessity or otherwise of according permission to establish new colleges of education in the State in future and that the existing institutions are found to be adequate. However, the right that is accrued to the petitioners on the basis of their application and the consideration thereof by the first respondent cannot be taken away on account of the change of policy. It is settled principle of law that whenever an application is made, it must be considered and processed in accordance with the provisions of law or the policy that existed as on the date of presentation. Subsequent changes may apply to the applications that are made thereafter. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to take necessary steps as contemplated in its communication dated 24.11.2009 and pass appropriate orders. There shall be no order as to costs.” 3. Since the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the above-mentioned order, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above-mentioned order in W.P.No.6712 of 2009, with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders with six weeks. The order copy in W.P.No.6712 of 2009, shall form part of this order. No order as to costs. _________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 15th June 2010 lmv