HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32806 of 2010 Date : 28.02.2011 Between : Uma General Technical and Medical Educational Society, Kalavarai, Bobbili, rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent. …..Petitioner And National Council for Teacher Education, Regional office, Bangalore, rep. by its Regional Director & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32806 of 2010 ORDER : The petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It has challenged the order, dated 18th April 2009, passed by the 1st respondent in F.SRO/NCTE/2008-09/11826, rejecting its application for grant of permission to start Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) course. Petitioner-Society has made an application on 24.10.2008 to the respondents, seeking permission to establish a D.Ed. college, by enclosing all necessary documents as per the norms and standards notified by the National Council for Teacher Education. The impugned order of rejection is passed, based on the policy notified by the Government of Andhra Pradesh during the year 2009. It is the case of the petitioner that its application was to be considered with reference to the policy, which was in force at the time of its making such application. In this connection, the learned counsel for petitioner has relied on an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.6712 of 2009, dated 16.12.2009. I have perused a copy of the impugned order as well as the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.6712 of 2009, dated 16.12.2009. By impugned order, the claim of the petitioner is rejected based on the policy communicated by the 2nd respondent-Government in the year 2009. In W.P.No.6712 of 2009, this Court has 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 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.” A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that it squarely covers the issue involved in the present writ petition. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed, by setting aside the order, dated 18th April 2009, passed by the 1st respondent in F.SRO/NCTE/2008- 09/11826, with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the matter afresh by applying the policy, which was in force at the time of filing of application by the petitioner. However, it is needless to observe that such consideration shall be in accordance with the Regulations, which are in force, as notified by the National Council for Teacher Education. Subject to above directions, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th February 2011 ajr