Shri Jivan Jyoti Trust & Anr. vs National Council For Teacher Education & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 29 June, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 8389/2026 & CM APPL. 39392/2026
SHRI JIVAN JYOTI TRUST & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti
Kumari and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ray,
Advs.
versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Nandeesh
Nanda, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL) :
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking issuance of appropriate writ to quash and set
th
aside the impugned order dated 12 June, 2026 issued by respondent no. 2,
and further direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s application for
recognition of conversion/transition of existing 04-year integrated B.A.B.Ed
course to ITEP course from present academic session 2026-27.
2. As per the facts on record, the Western Regional Committee
th
(“WRC”), vide its order dated 17 July, 2007, granted recognition to the
petitioner to conduct the 04-year integrated B.A.B.Ed. course with an annual
intake of 50 seats (one basic unit) from academic session 2007-08. Pursuant
th th
to issuance of public notice dated 25 August, 2025 and 12 September,
2025, the petitioners submitted its fresh online application to National
th
Council for Teacher Education (“NCTE”) dated 05 October, 2025.
Subsequently, the inspection of the petitioners institute was carried out on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:29.06.2026
21:59:49
Page 1 of 7

th
06 May, 2026.
3. At this stage the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that the WRC, without providing a copy of the inspection report, issued a
th
Final Show Cause Notice dated 14 May, 2026 to the petitioner, wherein no
grounds or deficiency in respect of the said notice were given.
4. Consequently, the petitioners submitted its reply to the said Show
Cause Notice, along with the requisite documents on the online portal of
th
NCTE. However, the WRC vide its order dated 12 June, 2026, refused the
application of the petitioners for transition of existing & recognized
B.A.B.Ed. course to ITEP course.
5. In furtherance thereof, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the order issued by WRC simply states that the reply given by the
petitioners herein has been taken into account.
th
6. Thus, he submits that the impugned order dated 12 June, 2026,
passed by the respondent is liable to be set aside. Further, he relies upon the
th
order dated 29 May, 2026, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 7398/2026,
titled as “Shri Jagat Narayan College & Anr. versus National Council for
Teacher Education & Anr”.
7. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for the
respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the present matter, and
submits that the impugned order does not require any interference by this
Court. He also submits that petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal
under Section 18 of NCTE Act.
9. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties.
10. The facts are evident from the documents on record. The aforesaid
th
impugned order dated 12 June, 2026 reads as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:29.06.2026
21:59:49
Page 2 of 7

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:29.06.2026
21:59:49
Page 3 of 7

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:29.06.2026
21:59:49
Page 4 of 7

th
11. A perusal of the aforesaid impugned order dated 12 June, 2026,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:29.06.2026
21:59:49
Page 5 of 7

shows that except for paragraph 6, which states that the “reply submitted by
the TEI/ HEI was considered by the Regional Committee on 03/06/2026 in
Meeting No. 462 (Part-II) and the same was found deficient” , no reasons
have been given by the WRC for rejecting the application of the petitioners.
Once a reply to a Show Cause Notice was submitted, it was incumbent upon
the said WRC to consider the reply and documents submitted by the said
institute.
12. In view of the above, as respondent no. 2 did not take into account or
th
consider the reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 14 May, 2026 submitted
by the petitioners, which had been duly received by WRC, this Court is of
th
the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 12 June, 2026 issued
by WRC has been passed mechanically, and also in violation of the
Principles of Natural Justice. Therefore, the said order cannot be sustained.
th
13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12 June, 2026 passed by the
WRC is quashed, as being illegal.
14. The matter is remanded back to WRC to reconsider the reply to the
th
Show Cause Notice dated 14 May, 2026 submitted by the petitioners, in
accordance with the law, within a period of two weeks, from today. The
WRC will also provide a copy of the inspection report to petitioners.
15. If any further information or clarification is required, WRC will
inform the petitioners accordingly, and the petitioners will submit a reply
thereto within a period of one week, thereafter. The WRC shall take a final
decision taking into account the reply and documents submitted by
petitioners, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of one
week, thereafter.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:29.06.2026
21:59:49
Page 6 of 7

16. The present petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. The pending
application also stands disposed of.



MINI PUSHKARNA
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 29, 2026/ au
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:29.06.2026
21:59:49
Page 7 of 7