National Council For Teacher Education And Anr. vs Holy Child Bed College & Anr.

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Reserved on : 06.04.2026
Judgment delivered on : 07.05.2026
Judgment uploaded on : 08.05.2026

+ LPA 27/2023 & CM APPL. 1677/2023, CM APPL. 48233/2025
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR.
.....Appellants
Through: Mr. Hardik Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya
Malhotra and Ms. Tripta Sharma,
Advs.
versus
HOLY CHILD BED COLLEGE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Mayank Manish, Mr. Ravi Kant,
Mr. Vineet Upadhyay and Mr. Ayush
Aanand, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

JUDGMENT

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.

1. The present intra Court appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the
Letters Patent read with Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act, 1966 assailing
the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C)
No. 1043/2022 titled as ‘Holy Child B.ED. College vs NCTE & Ors’.
2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the learned Single Judge while
upholding the validity of the order dated 26.02.2020 passed by the Appellant
No.2 [i.e., Eastern Regional Committee (‘ERC’)] withdrawing the
recognition of the B. Ed course offered by Respondent No. 1/Institute as


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MAHIMA SHARMA
Signing Date:08.05.2026
14:38:08
LPA 27/2023 Page 1 of 11

well as the validity of the order dated 10.03.2021 passed by the Appellant
No.1 [i.e., National Council for Teacher Education (‘NCTE’)], rejecting the
appeal of Respondent No. 1, nevertheless directed the Appellant No. 2 to
effectively consider Respondent No. 1’s eligibility for the prospective
academic session. The operative part of the impugned order challenged in
this appeal is as under: -
“…….

5. In terms of the proviso to Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993, the
withdrawal of recognition has already come into effect and therefore,
Petitioner college cannot intake students for the academic session
2022-23.

6. Petitioner - college was originally granted recognition for B.Ed.
course from the academic session 2008-09 vide ERC's order dated 30
August, 2008. Given that Petitioner has claimed that the faculty list is
now in place, it will be appropriate that ERC examine the same.
Accordingly, ERC is directed to examine the afore-said faculty list
and conduct an inspection if so required and take a decision for the
prospective session, in accordance with law within a period of three
months from today.

7. The above direction is subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be
deposited with Delhi High Court Advocates' Welfare Trust.

8. The Court has not examined the merits of the case of Petitioner and
all rights and contentions are left open.

9. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of.”

Submissions by the Appellant
3. It is the case of the Appellants that Respondent No. 1/Institution was
granted a revised recognition order dated 24.05.2015 for the B.Ed.
programme with an annual intake of 100 students, subject to fulfilment of
prescribed conditions, including submission of a faculty list duly approved
by the affiliating University.
3.1. Mr. Hardik Rupal, learned counsel for the Appellants states that


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MAHIMA SHARMA
Signing Date:08.05.2026
14:38:08
LPA 27/2023 Page 2 of 11

pursuant to coming into force of NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2014 (‘NCTE Regulations, 2014’), all Institutions recognized
by the NCTE were granted time till 31.10.2015 to comply with the revised
norms and standards.
It is stated that Respondent No. 1, however, failed to comply with the
norms, within the stipulated period and remained non-compliant thereafter
as well.
3.2. He states that the NCTE Regulations, 2014, particularly Regulation 7,
Regulation 7(13), and Regulation 7(14)(i), mandate compliance with faculty,
infrastructure and administrative requirements by the concerned Institution
(i.e., Respondent No. 1), including an approved faculty, approved building
documents, and a functional website carrying complete statutory disclosures.
3.3. He states that in view of non-compliances, a Show Cause Notice
dated 21.02.2019 was issued by Appellant No. 2 to Respondent No.
1/Institute requiring it to inter-alia furnish the current approved faculty list,
approved building plan, approved building completion certificate and
confirmation on website operation. He states that in its reply dated
20.03.2019, Respondent No. 1 did not furnish compliance and instead
sought further time till 31.05.2019 to submit the approved faculty list.
3.4. He states that thereafter, a final Show Cause Notice dated 26.12.2019
was issued by Appellant No. 2 to Respondent No. 1/Institute. In response to
same, Respondent No. 1 failed to demonstrate compliance and admitted that
the approved faculty list and the building completion certificate would be
furnished in due course and that the website was not being properly
maintained and updated.
3.5. He states that since the deficiencies remained unrectified, Appellant


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MAHIMA SHARMA
Signing Date:08.05.2026
14:38:08
LPA 27/2023 Page 3 of 11

No. 2, in exercise of powers under Section 17(1) of NCTE, Act 1993, passed
the withdrawal order dated 26.02.2020 on three (3) principal grounds,
namely:
i. Faculty list is not up-to-date as per NCTE Regulations, 2014. The list
is not duly approved by affiliating body;
ii. Website is not maintained and updated;
iii. Building completion certificate (completion certificate) issued by the
competent authority is not submitted.
3.6. Aggrieved by the said withdrawal order dated 26.02.2020,
Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE
Act,1993 before the Appeal Committee i.e., Appellant No. 1. The appeal
was dismissed vide order dated 10.03.2021, after recording that despite three
(3) opportunities no one appeared on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and
that, till date, the required deficiencies remained unaddressed and
unresolved.
3.7. He states that the learned Single Judge, found no infirmity in either
the withdrawal order dated 26.02.2020 or the appellate order dated
10.03.2021 and expressly upheld both, however, despite affirming the
validity of the statutory action, the learned Single Judge has directed
reconsideration of the Respondent No. 1/Institution for admission of
students for prospective academic session.
3.8. He states that Respondent No. 1/Institute relied upon the approved
faculty list dated 01.08.2022 before the learned Single Judge and this
persuaded the Court to direct reconsideration of the approved faculty list
submitted by Respondent No. 1.
3.9. He states, however, the withdrawal order dated 26.02.2020, which


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MAHIMA SHARMA
Signing Date:08.05.2026
14:38:08
LPA 27/2023 Page 4 of 11

was upheld in appeal vide order dated 10.03.2021 had attained finality and it
is impermissible under the scheme of the NCTE Act, 1993 and the NCTE
Regulations, 2014, to reconsider recall of the withdrawal of the recognition.
3.10. He states that the Respondent No. 1/Institute must apply afresh for
recognition as per the extant law and no relief could have been granted to
Respondent No. 1/Institute in the writ petition.
3.11. He summarises that the Respondent No. 1 was granted multiple
opportunities and sufficient time to remove the deficiencies and bring itself
in conformity with the applicable norms. Despite such indulgence, the
Respondent No. 1 failed to take timely and effective steps for curing the
deficiencies. It is submitted that the action of withdrawal was not taken
abruptly or without notice, but only after the Respondent No. 1 failed to
comply even after issuance of SCN(s) and grant of adequate opportunity.
The Respondent No. 1, having remained inactive despite repeated chances,
cannot now contend that it was denied a fair opportunity or seek to take
advantage of its own delay and inaction.
Submissions by the Respondent No.1
4.
Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, learned senior counsel appearing for the
Respondent No. 1/Institution states that Respondent No. 1 was initially
affiliated with Gaur Banga University. He states that Respondent No. 1’s
faculty list was approved by the said University.
4.1. He states that subsequently Respondent No. 1/Institute’s affiliation
changed to West Bengal University of Teachers’ Training Education
Planning & Administration (‘WBTTEPA’) vide letter dated 11.05.2017 and
Respondent No. 1/Institute was granted affiliation for conducting the B. Ed
course for the academic session 2017-18. He states that due to this change of
affiliating University, Respondent No. 1 had to undertake fresh approval of


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MAHIMA SHARMA
Signing Date:08.05.2026
14:38:08
LPA 27/2023 Page 5 of 11

its faculty from the new affiliating University/WBTTEPA and submit the
same to Appellant No. 2.
4.2. He states that despite its best efforts it did not receive timely approval
of the faculty list from the affiliating University/WBTTEPA and this fact
was duly communicated to Appellant No. 2 (i.e., ERC). He states that the
steps taken by Respondent No. 1 between 2019-22 for having the faculty list
approved is on record. He states that due to the lockdown imposed in the
country in 2020-21 the issue of approval was exacerbated. He states that the
final approved faculty list was received on 01.08.2022. He states that the
facts on record demonstrated that the delay in getting the approval of the
faculty list was not entirely due to the inaction of the Respondent No. 1 and,
therefore, in these peculiar facts, learned Single Judge directed a fresh
reconsideration.
4.3. He states that after the issuance of the withdrawal order dated
26.02.2020, Respondent No. 1/Institute was permitted to admit students for
the academic session 2020-21 by the order of the High Court in W.P.(C)
7818/2020, since the appeal against the withdrawal order was pending
before Appellant No. 1.
4.4. He states that if Respondent No. 1/Institute applies for recognition to
the Appellant No. 2 under the extant law, it will be difficult for it as
Appellant’s policy has changed and recognition to standalone institute
offering B. Ed course is no more permissible and recognition is only granted
to institutes offering multi-disciplinary courses. He states, therefore,
Respondent No. 1/Institute is pursuing for revival of the revised recognition
granted on 24.05.2015.
Case Analysis:
5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MAHIMA SHARMA
Signing Date:08.05.2026
14:38:08
LPA 27/2023 Page 6 of 11

the record.
6. During the proceedings in the present matter, vide interim order dated
13.01.2023 this Court has stayed the operation of the impugned order dated
23.09.2022.
7. In response to our query, learned senior counsel for Respondent No.
1/Institute states that after academic session of 2020-21 no further students
have been admitted to the Respondent No.1/Institute in view of the
withdrawal of the recognition by the Appellants. He states that due to the
withdrawal order dated 26.02.2020, WBTTEPA (‘University’) has not
renewed Respondent No. 1’s affiliation. He also clarifies that since no
further students have been admitted, as on date the faculty enlisted in the
approved list dated 01.08.2022 is no more employed with Respondent No.
1/Institute.
8. The facts as they stand today are that recognition of Respondent No.
1/Institute was withdrawn by Appellant No. 2 vide order dated 26.02.2020
and the appeal filed against the said order was dismissed on 10.03.2021, thus
the withdrawal order has attained finality. The legality of the said orders has
been upheld by the learned Single Judge and there is no challenge to the said
orders even in these proceedings.
9. As a corollary, WBTTEPA (‘University’) has not renewed the
affiliation of Respondent No. 1/Institute and it has not admitted any students
after the academic session of 2020-21.
10. One of the principal grounds for the passing of the withdrawal order
dated 26.02.2020 was that Respondent No. 1/Institute did not have requisite
as well as an approved faculty list atleast since 22.06.2017. The first Show
Cause Notice was issued on 21.02.2019 and again a final Show Cause


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MAHIMA SHARMA
Signing Date:08.05.2026
14:38:08
LPA 27/2023 Page 7 of 11

Notice on 26.12.2019. Since the issues raised in notices remained non-
compliant, Appellant No. 2 passed the withdrawal order dated 26.02.2020.
There was no issue of nationwide lockdown between June, 2017 and
February, 2020, however, Respondent No. 1 failed to ensure appointment of
requisite faculty and obtain approval of the faculty list from WBTTEPA
(‘University’)
Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal on 27.09.2020, before Appellant
No. 1, against the withdrawal order dated 26.02.2020 passed by Appellant
No. 2.
11. During the pendency of its appeal before Appellant No. 1, Respondent
No. 1 filed W.P.(C) 7818/2020 seeking a direction that it should be
permitted to admit students for academic year 2020-21 during the pendency
of the appeal. In the said writ petition, permission was granted vide order
dated 12.10.2020 to Respondent No. 1/Institute to admit students for the
academic session 2020-21, pending its appeal.
12. The issue of unavailability of the requisite faculty and approved
faculty list from WBTTEPA (‘University’) continued to remain outstanding.
The appeal against the said withdrawal order was also decided by Appellant
No. 1 after one (1) year on 10.03.2021, upholding the withdrawal order
passed by Appellant No. 2.
13. There is no dispute that the deficiencies recorded in the withdrawal
order dated 26.02.2020 and the Appellate order dated 10.03.2021 existed in
Respondent No. 1/Institute, on the date of passing of the orders and
therefore, the orders were correct in fact and law.
14. Respondent No. 1, after 10 months on 10.01.2022, filed the
underlying W.P. (C) 1043/2022 alleging that it has been unable to obtain the


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MAHIMA SHARMA
Signing Date:08.05.2026
14:38:08
LPA 27/2023 Page 8 of 11

approved faculty list from the WBTTEPA (‘University’) on account of the
inaction of the said University. It made the University a party in the said writ
and sought a direction to the said University to provide the approved faculty
list. The approved faculty list was provided by the University on 01.08.2022.
15. The approved faculty list has been placed on record as Annexure R-4.
A perusal of this list shows that 15 out of 20 faculty members in this list
were appointed by Respondent No. 1/Institute only on 10.06.2022. In our
considered opinion, this fact alone shows that the apprehension of Appellant
No. 2 that Respondent No. 1 was operating the Institute without the requisite
faculty stands proved. In our considered opinion, the appointment of the
faculty on 10.06.2022 could not have afforded any legal or equitable right in
favour of Respondent No. 1/Institute for seeking reconsideration from the
Appellants against withdrawal order dated 26.02.2020.
16. Having perused the facts on record, we are satisfied that Respondent
No. 1/Institute was in default of its compliance obligations with respect to
deployment of requisite faculty as well as approved faculty and therefore its
recognition had been rightly withdrawn by the Appellants. The facts on
record do not show that though Respondent No. 1/Institute had the requisite
faculty, it was only awaiting approval from the WBTTEPA (‘University’).
Lack of requisite faculty for the period of 2017-2021 cannot be justified by
Respondent No. 1 by placing the blame on WBTTEPA (‘University’).
Appellant’s orders withdrawing the recognition was justified and necessary
for protecting the interest of the students who would have been enrolled in
Respondent No. 1/Institute which did not have the requisite faculty.
17. Moreover, with the passage of time, as on date Respondent No.
1/Institute no more has on its rolls the faculty, which was appointed on


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MAHIMA SHARMA
Signing Date:08.05.2026
14:38:08
LPA 27/2023 Page 9 of 11

10.06.2022 or the other employees enlisted in the said approved list dated
01.08.2022. It is no more affiliated with WBTTEPA (‘University’) and
students were last enrolled in the academic year 2020-21. The facts on
ground have therefore changed. Respondent No. 1 can apply for fresh
recognition after complying with the Rules and, therefore, no prejudice has
been caused to it.
18. We therefore find merit in this appeal and are of the considered
opinion that there can be no direction issued to Appellants to examine the
faculty list dated 01.08.2022 or re-inspect the premises of Respondent No. 1.
The withdrawal order dated 26.02.2020, which was upheld by Appellant No.
1 on 10.03.2021 having been found to be legal and valid by the learned
Single Judge attained finality, and there was no good ground to direct the
Appellants to reconsider their decision.
19. The Respondent has relied upon the judgment of this Court in
Rambha College of Education v. National Council for Teacher
1
Education , (which has been authored by one of us i.e., V. Kameswar Rao,
J) to contend that a direction for remand to the Appellate Authority is
permissible for considering subsequent events (such as the approved faculty
list dated 01.08.2022 in the facts of this case). In our considered opinion, the
facts of the said judgment are distinguishable. In Rambha College (supra),
the concerned institution had cured the deficiency while the validity of the
withdrawal order was pending consideration before the Appellate
Authority/NCTE, however the Appellate authority declined to take note of
the subsequent event curing the deficiency. It was brought to the attention of
the High Court that in similar facts, other institutes have been permitted to

1
Judgment dated 23.02.2017 in W.P.(C) 3231/2016


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MAHIMA SHARMA
Signing Date:08.05.2026
14:38:08
LPA 27/2023 Page 10 of 11

submit documents for curing deficiency. It was in this context that the Court
held that subsequent events occurring between the decision of the Regional
Committee and the decision of the Appellate Authority, which showed that
the deficiency stood cured, ought to have been considered. In the present
case, however, the faculty list was approved on 01.08.2022, i.e., much after
(13 months later) the order dated 10.03.2021 passed by the Appellate
Authority. Moreover, the requisite faculty itself had been appointed on
10.06.2022 as observed above and we are not satisfied that this circumstance
was not in the control of the Respondent No. 1/Institute and this belated
appointment of faculty should be considered as compliance of the Show
Cause Notice dated 21.02.2019.
20. The facts of this case do not merit any direction to the Appellants for
reconsideration at the instance of Respondent No. 1.
21. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Pending applications are disposed
of.
CM APPL. 48233/2025 (Waiver of cost)
22. This is an application filed by the appellant seeking waiver of costs
imposed vide order dated 25.11.2024 (wrongly pleaded as order dated
04.02.2025).
23. For the reasons stated in the application, the costs are hereby waived.
The application is allowed. The directions to pay costs are hereby recalled.


MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J


V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

MAY 07, 2026/hp/AJ


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MAHIMA SHARMA
Signing Date:08.05.2026
14:38:08
LPA 27/2023 Page 11 of 11