The main legal point established in the judgment is that the withdrawal of recognition must be based on correct and justified grounds, and in this case, the recognition withdrawal was found to be based on an incorrect conclusion by the Appellate Authority.

1. Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent in F.No. APSO5948/B.Ed/TN/2012-13/45663, dated 29.08.2012, confirmed in Appeal by the order of the first respondent in F.No.89-607/2012 Appeal/7th Meeting-2013/A67139, dated 14.05.2013 and consequently, to direct the respondents to restore the recognition granted to the petitioner institution.

2. According to the petitioner, the Educational Agency, viz., Christian Mission Charitable Trust, proposed to start one year B.Ed. course and applied to the second respondent for recognition. The second respondent granted recognition to the petitioner Institution by its order, dated 09.01.2007. The University also granted affiliation to the petitioner Institution for starting the College for the academic year 2008-09. One of the conditions for grant of recognition was that the Institution shall shift to its own premises/building within 3 years from the date of recognition.

3. The land in which the petitioner Institution is situated was owned by the Correspondent of the Institution, viz., in the individual name of S.Selvaraj, he in turn executed a 99 year registered lease to the Trust viz., the Educational Agency to start B.Ed. College. The lease was permitted as per the old rules. Later on, in 2009, National Council for Teacher Education amended its rules and permitted the Institution to be started in its own premises or lands and buildings leased out by Central or State Government. But, in this case, the Correspondent was the owner of the land and in turn, he executed the lease in favour of the petitioner. There was an inspection carried out on 08.06.2010. Based on the inspection report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner Institution in the year 2012, pointing out certain deficiencies, one of the deficiency pointed out is that even after three years of grant of recognition, the petitioner has not shifted the Institution to new premises. For the show cause notice, dated 25.06.2012, the petitioner sent a reply on 14.07.2012, stating that the deficiencies have been complied with, however, on 29.08.2012, the second respondent withdrew the recognition granted to the petitioner Institution. Against the same, the petitioner has preferred statutory appeal under Section 18 of National Council for Teacher Education Act, before the first respondent on 21.09.2012. The first respondent, who is the Appellate Authority, has passed an order on 14.05.2013 upholding the order of the second respondent dated 29.08.2012. As against the said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the impugned order mainly on the ground that the Appellate Authority had come to a wrong conclusion that the registered Settlement Deed was executed by the Correspondent after the date of withdrawal of the recognition, which is factually in correct, as the Settlement Deed was registered even as early as on 16.03.2012, whereas, the recognition was withdrawn only with effect from 29.08.2012, therefore, this shows that the Appellate Authority has not applied his mind as regards the factual position as it then prevailed by virtue of the Settlement Deed in favour of the Educational Agency. He would further submit that all other deficiencies pointed out by the second respondent have already been rectified and the same was taken note of by the second respondent. He would further add that the petitioner Institution is a minority Institution, but, this vital fact has not been taken into consideration by the second respondent before withdrawing the recognition and hence the Writ Petition.

5. A counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter, the respondents would mainly point out that the petitioner did not rectify all the deficiencies pointed out by the second respondent and did not shift to its own premises within the stipulated period and the Settlement Deed was registered, much