JUDGMENT :

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

This Judgment shall govern disposal of all the appeals, which have been filed by the State and were heard analogously.

2. These appeals, preferred by the State, arise out of a common order passed by the learned Single Judge in Surender Kaur Memorial College of Higher Education Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2359/2021 and batch of writ petitions decided on 23.10.2021) raising common issues and ventilating grievance against the State. Some of the appeals filed by the State are those where learned Single Judge, relying upon it’s lead common order passed in the case of Surender Kaur Memorial College of Higher Education (supra) has disposed off individual petitions granting relief. Since, in all the appeals, common issue arises for consideration, therefore, they are being disposed off by this common judgment.

3. The respondents-writ petitioners in this batch of appeals set up infrastructure to commence/continue B.Ed./D.El.Ed./STC Course in their respective institutions. As grant of recognition to such institutions is admittedly governed and regulated by the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short ‘the NCTE Act of 1993’) and regulations framed thereunder namely, the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (for short ‘the NCTE Regulations of 2014’), the respondents-writ petitioners moved applications for grant of recognition before the competent authority under the provisions of the NCTE Act of 1993 and the NCTE Regulations of 2014. Their applications were processed and finally, National Council for Teacher Education (for short ‘the NCTE’), after scrutinising eligibility criteria, issued Letters of Intent (LoI) to respective respondents-writ petitioners.

4. However, when the respective respondents-writ petitioners approached the State and the concerned University for granting staff approval, as required under the NCTE Regulations of 2014, the State/University concerned did not accord necessary approval. The respondents-writ petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petitions seeking issuance of appropriate directions in the nature of Mandamus to the affiliating bodies to conduct inspection and grant staff approval.

5. Learned Single Judge vide common order, as stated above as also the orders passed in individual cases relying upon common order passed in the case of Surender Kaur Memorial College of Higher Education (supra), allowed the writ petitions with direction to the affiliating authority, namely, the State of Rajasthan or the University, as the case may be, to carry out the exercise of granting staff approval in a time bound manner, though after being satisfied about the norms set by the NCTE/competent authority in that regard with a further direction to communicate acceptance or rejection to all concerned. The State, being aggrieved by the said directions of the learned Single Judge, has filed these appeals assailing the correctness and validity of such directions issued by the learned Single Judge in all the cases.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant-State would argue that even though the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the policy (guidelines) dated 20.07.2021, by which School Education Department of the State Government has decided not to grant NOC, yet proceeded to hold that once No Objection Certificate (NOC)/LoI to an institution has been issued by the NCTE/Regional Committee, the policy decision, which has been taken on 20.07.2021, cannot be made applicable to the cases of the respondents-writ petitioners whose applications for grant of recognition have reached at the final or advanced stage. He would argue that finding of the learned Single Judge that the guidelines could not be applied retrospectively is erroneous in law. Learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the policy dated 20.07.2021, in clear terms, stat