THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA W.P.No. 11095 of 2011 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the policy decision of the 1st respondent not to permit any recognition for further private B.Ed./D.Ed./Private Physical Education/Private Language Pandit training colleges, as communicated vide the impugned proceedings in Letter No.22525/Trg./A1/2008, dated 7.1.2009 to respondents 2 and 3, as arbitrary, illegal and the consequential action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner submitted on 30.10.2008 for grant of recognition to B.Ed. course vide impugned proceeding No.F.SRO/NCTE/2008- 09/11012, dated 26.3.2009 on account of the impugned policy of respondent No.1, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and regulations made thereunder and issue a consequential direction to respondents 2 and 3 to grant recognition to the D.Ed. course to the petitioner forthwith.” The first petitioner society submitted an application to the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) on 30.10.2008 seeking permission to run B.Ed. College. Since then, it was under process and certain deficiencies were pointed out by the respondents. It is stated that in spite of the alleged deficiencies were complied by the first petitioner society, order, dated 26.3.2009, was passed by the respondents rejecting the application of the first petitioner on the ground that there is a change in the policy notified by the Government. Today, when the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in similar matters, this Court while disposing of the same, recorded a finding that the application has to be considered with reference to the policy, which was in vogue during relevant year, but not basing on the changed policy for the subsequent years. It is also admitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for NCTE. A copy of order, dated 16.12.2009, passed by this Court in W.P.No.6712 of 2009 is placed on record. In the said order, the learned Single Judge of this Court has recorded a finding to the following effect: “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.” In that view of the matter, having regard to the fact that the application of the first petitioner society is also prior to the present policy notified by the Government and the respondents considered such application applying the present policy of the Government, order bearing No.F.SRO/NCTE/2008-09/11012 dated 26.3.2009, rejecting the request of the first petitioner society to run B.Ed College, is set aside and the respondents are directed to reconsider the application of the first petitioner society with reference to the policy, which was in force, during relevant year, when the application was initially submitted by it, and take steps accordingly, for grant of permission as prayed for. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA J. DATE: 20-4-2011. Note: Issue copies in a week. (BO) MVB.