THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.M.P.No.33871 of 2010 in/and Writ Petition No.13750 of 2009 Dated 21st April, 2011 Between: Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Educational Society …Petitioner And National Council for Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Bangalore-560 031 and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.Ram Kumar For Sri V.Srinivas Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: AGP for Higher Education Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri P.Vinayaka Swamy The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. W.P.M.P.No.33871 of 2010 is filed seeking to dispose of the writ petition in terms of order, dated 16.12.2009, in W.P.No.6712 of 2009. The writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order in F.SRO/NCTE/2008-09/11913, dated 22.04.2009, of respondent No.1, whereby it has closed the petitioner’s application seeking recognition for starting Vijetha Collage of D.Ed., in pursuance of the purported policy decision of respondent No.3 not to recognise/permit any institutions for conducting D.Ed. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the issues raised in this writ petition are covered by order, dated 16.12.2009, in W.P.No.6712 of 2009, wherein this Court inter alia held 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.” Following the above order, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the same with the direction that the reasons and directions contained in the said order, dated 16.12.2009, shall form part of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.17959 of 2009 and W.P.M.P.No.33871 of 2010 filed by the petitioner are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st April, 2011 VGB