ORDER :

1. These writ petitions involve common questions of facts and law and thus, they are being disposed of jointly by this common order.

2. The petitioners herein have set up infrastructure to commence/continue B.Ed./D.El.Ed./STC Course in their respective institutions and, therefore, moved applications for grant of recognition before the competent authority under the provisions of National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (for short ‘the Regulations of 2014’).

3. It is the assertion of the petitioners that while submitting the application forms, requisite NOC was obtained from the state government, whereafter their applications under the Regulations of 2014 were processed by the National Council of Teacher Education (for short ‘the NCTE’) and after completion of requisite formalities, Letters of Intent (LoI) have been issued by the respondent NCTE intimating the petitioners.

4. Consequent to issuance of LoIs, as per the Regulation No. 7(13) of the Regulations of 2014, staff approval is required to be given by the affiliating body (state government/university).

5. But as the affiliating body, namely, state government/university are not even taking up the exercise of staff approval, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking requisite mandamus/direction to the affiliating bodies to conduct inspection and grant staff approval.

6. It may be noted that so far as recognition of an institution is concerned, Regulations of 2014 are complete code in themselves, which have been framed in exercise of powers available to the Central Government under Section 32(2) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NCTE Act’) which was enacted by the Parliament under the powers conferred by Entry No. 66 of List I of Schedule VII to the Constitution of India.

7. Learned counsel navigated the Court through various provisions of the Regulations and pointed out that the state government cannot sit over the request for grant of staff approval because the Regulations enjoin upon them to grant staff approval, of course after due verification of the staff or faculties appointed or to be appointed by the institutions. He submitted that after issuance of LoI, the state government is required to ensure that the faculties or staff appointed by the applicant institute is in accordance with the norms set by the NCTE.

8. Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that regardless of issuance of letter of intent, the petitioners' request for staff approval has not been processed by the state government, apparently in light of the policy decision (guidelines) dated 20.07.2021, in which the School Education Department of the state government has decided not to grant NOC, as there are sufficient number of institutions imparting D.P.Ed. and D.El.Ed and the unwarranted growth of institutions is affecting the quality of education.

9. The petitioners have challenged the policy decision dated 20.07.2021 of the state government, so also the action of the respondents in not granting staff approval under the pretext that the number of institutions operating in the state is sufficient.

10. Learned counsel argued that once LoI has been issued by the competent body, i.e. NCTE, the state being an agency, authorized/empowered to ensure the requisite infrastructure and faculties are available, cannot refuse to conduct inspection for the purpose of granting staff approval.

11. Learned counsel further submitted that in the identical circumstances, the Jaipur Bench of this Court has recently allowed the writ petitions vide judgment dated 06.10.2021, rendered in a group of cases led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1712/2021 (B.D.M.L. Shikshan Sansthan vs. State and Others).

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, pointed out that in the above referred writ petitions allowed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court, validity of the policy decision dated 20.07.2021 of the state