(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition had been filed to call for and quash the records relating to the order of the first respondent, dated 19.12.2008, confirming the order of the second respondent, dated 22.9.2008, rejecting the request of the petitioner Institution for the grant of recognition.
(3.) IT has been further submitted that the second respondent, in its notice, dated 28.8.2008, had wrongly mentioned that the built up space available for the existing B.Ed. course was only 11,440 Sq.Ft. Even though the petitioner Institution had clarified in its reply, dated 30.8.2008, that it had a total built up area of 20,640 Sq.Ft for the existing B.Ed. course, the second respondent had mistaken the built up area of 20,640 Sq.Ft. to be the space both for the existing B.Ed. course, as well as for the proposed M.Ed. course. Accordingly, the request of the petitioner for starting the M.Ed. course had been wrongly rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner Institution had preferred an appeal before the first respondent, under Section 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. However, the first respondent had rejected the appeal on the ground that the petitioner Institution had only a built up area of 20,640 Sq.Ft. which is inadequate, as per the norms prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education. Further, the first respondent had erred in noting that the petitioner Institution had only a carpet area of 9,920 Sq.Ft., contrary to the facts.