The main legal point established in the judgment is that any request for restoration or enhancement of intake capacity for educational programs must strictly adhere to the prescribed procedure under the relevant regulations, and in the absence of specific provisions permitting restoration, no mandamus can be issued.

ORDER

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner-institution has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 22/23.08.2022 passed by the respondent-Southern Regional Committee (hereinafter referred to as "SRC") in its 413th Meeting, whereby, the request of the petitioner-institution for grant of an additional unit of 50 students was rejected by the respondent-SRC.

2. The petitioner, therefore, prays for issuing direction to the respondent- SRC to reconsider its case and restore the recognition for the additional one unit (50 seats) for conducting B.Ed. course.

3. The facts of the present writ petition indicate that in terms of the order dated 01.03.2005, respondent-SRC granted recognition to the petitioner- institution for conducting B.Ed. course of one-year duration with an annual intake of 100 students for the academic session 2005-2006. On 20.01.2015, the petitioner-institution submitted an affidavit for annual intake of two basic units of 50 each in view of promulgation of regulations known as the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter as `Regulations, 2014').

4. Accordingly, a revised recognition order came to be issued in favour of the petitioner institution for an annual intake of 100 students for running B.Ed. course from the academic session 2015-16.

5. It appears that on the request of the petitioner-institution dated 22.12.2016, respondent-SRC reduced the intake capacity of the petitioner- institution from 100 students (two basic units) to 50 students (one basic unit).

6. The petitioner-institution thereafter, appears to have made a representation on 10.04.2018 seeking permission for increasing the number of basic units to two with 50 students each. Subsequently, a common show cause notice was issued by the respondent-SRC to all the institutions including the petitioner, which was duly replied by the petitioner-institution. In terms of the decision dated 5/6.07/2022, the respondent-SRC decided to issue continuation order to the petitioner-institution for two basic units of (100) students for B.Ed. program.

7. The decision dated 5/6.07.2022 came to be substituted by another decision dated 22/23.08.2022, wherein, the grant of two basic units was substituted by one basic unit of 50 students. The respondent-SRC vide order dated 02.08.2022 had already informed the petitioner that the petitioner is only entitled for continuation of one basic unit (50 students). The petitioner, therefore, has filed the instant petition.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the decision of respondent-SRC is illegal and improper and the same is without any application of mind. According to her, once the concerned SRC, in terms of the minutes of the meeting dated 5/6.07.2022, decided to issue the continuation order to the petitioner for B.Ed. programme for two basic units of 100 students, there was no reason to recall the said minutes of the meeting. She, therefore, states that without recording any reason in the subsequent minutes of the meeting, the decision of grant of two basic units has been substituted by the one basic unit.

9. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent-SRC had considered other cases for issuance of additional intake on the basis of the representation. She has placed reliance on a decision dated 03.06.2022 (Annexure P-10) passed by the respondent-SRC with respect to an institution, namely, Sree Narayana Training College, Nedunganda, Kerala to submit that on an application submitted by the said institution, the intake capacity was restored to its original capacity. She, therefore, submits that the petitioner is also entitled for similar treatment.

10. In addition to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also states that as of now, the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter as `NCTE') is not considering the fresh applications for en