ORDER :

1. The matter has been taken up via video-conferencing due to circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Heard Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NCTE’).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks, and is granted, permission to implead the State Nodal Officer, CETB.Ed.-2020, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga as respondent no. 3.

4. Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of newly-added respondent no. 3 and, accordingly, has also been heard.

5. Let necessary correction be made by learned counsel for the petitioners by filing fresh page of the cause title through e-mode, latest by tomorrow.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners shall forward copy of the entire pleadings to learned counsel for respondent no. 3, latest by tomorrow. Let the name of Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, learned counsel be printed in the cause list in the column of respondents.

7. The petitioners have moved the Court for following reliefs:

“(i) For quashing order no. ER-274.14.21/ERCAPP1075/B.Ed./2019/61363 dated 22-08-2019 issued under signature of Respondent No. 2 whereby intake for B.Ed. Course has been reduced from 100 to 50 from the academic session2020-2021 for the reason Faculty list comprises 1+12 instead of 1+15 as per NCTE Regulation, 2014.

(ii) For quashing the Appellate order F. No. 89-414/E-139148/2019 Appeal/37th Mtg.-2019/27th November, 2019 dated 23/12/2019 issued under signature of Shri Sanjay Awasthi, the learned Member Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioner against aforementioned order has been rejected and order constrained in F.No. ER-274.14.21/ERCAPP1075/B.Ed/2019/61363 dated 22-08-2019 has been confirmed.

(iii) For quashing order contained in letter no. F. No. 89-118/E-158886/2020 Appeal/17th Mtg. 2020/94522 dated 20/10/2020 whereby it has been informed that NCTE do not provide for a review appeal opportunity, once the appeal is directed and appeal order issued.

(iv) For directing the respondents to reinstate intake for B.Ed. Course to 100 because the lacuna has already been removed and eligible Faculties have already been appointed and consolidated list of faculty members as has already been sent to respondents.

(v) For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioners are found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

8. The issue can be crystallized as the Court is only required to consider as to whether the petitioner no. 1, being a University created under an Act of the State Legislature, and running B.Ed. Course through its constituent unit (petitioner no. 2), which has been approved by the NCTE, is entitled to admit 100 students for the Session 2020-22 instead of only 50, as has been directed by the NCTE after they have reduced the intake limit due to certain deficiency pointed out, pertaining to the number of faculty.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the list of faculties submitted by them of 1+12=13, the NCTE came up with the order dated 22.08.2019 by which the intake of the B.Ed. Course was reduced for the academic Session 2020-22 from 100 to 50 seats, on the ground that as per the NCTE Regulations, 2014 the requirement for 100 seats was of 1+15=16 faculties.

10. Learned counsel submitted that to remove such deficiency, the University recruited three more faculties and then filed an appeal under Section 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) enclosing the list of 1+15=16 faculty members to the NCTE, but by order dated 23.12.2019 the appeal was rejected on the ground that the three teachers did not possess the eligibility for appointment as faculty members. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners then went in for fresh recruitment, in which, after