Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners, while assailing the validity of the orders dated 08.10.2010, 03.11.2010 and 25.11.2010, whereby the Northern Regional Committee of National Council for Teachers Education (for short 'the NCTE' hereinafter) has confirmed the order dated 21.09.2010 withdrawing the recognition of the petitioner -institution for conducting B.Ed. Course. The learned counsel for the NCTE has put in appearance and raised preliminary objections that against the order dated 21.09.2010 withdrawing the recognition of the institution for conducting B.E. Course passed by the NCTE and the order dated 03.11.2010, the petitioner -institution is having an alternate and efficacious remedy of filing statutory appeal as envisaged under section 18 of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act of 1993' hereinafter).
(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondent -NCTE has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maa Vaishnao Devi Mahil Mahavidhyalaya v. State of U.P., : (2013) 2 SCC 617 has held that in the matter of recognition, Courts should not interfere and the aggrieved party should avail the remedy of statutory appeal only. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners wants to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file an appeal under Section 18 of the Act of 1993 against the impugned orders.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners further states that though the petitioner -Institution is disputing the fact of existence of deficiencies as pointed out by the respondent -NCTE while withdrawing the recognition of the petitioner -Institution for running B.Ed. Course but if the petitioner -Institution rectifies the said deficiencies and points out before the appellate authority, the appellate authority shall also take into consideration the said contention of the petitioners.;