Tirhut College Of Physical Education & Anr. vs National Council For Teacher Education & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~136
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 14.10.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010500312026
+ W.P.(C) 15346/2026
TIRHUT COLLEGE OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION & ANR.
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Preeti
Kumari, Advs.

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder JS Rupal, Mr. Hardik
Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Ms.
Tripta Sharma, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH


: JASMEET SINGH, J ( ORAL )


1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following prayers :-
“A. pass a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or
order quashing & setting aside the impugned refusal order
dated 01.10.2026 refusing recognition of M.P.Ed (Master
of Physical Education) course; and/or
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:14
W.P.(C) 15346/2026 Page 1 of 11

B. issue a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ,
order or direction to respondents to conduct inspection of
petitioner institute and process/decide application for grant
of recognition of M.P.Ed (Master of Physical Education)
course expeditiously and in time bound manner; and/or…”
2. The present order is being passed in view of the order dated
07.08.2026 passed in W.P.(C) 4221/2026, which deals with a similar
issue. Following the reasoning adopted and the observations made
therein, the present petition is being disposed of on similar grounds.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 ( “petitioner
institute” ) is an established institution set up by petitioner No. 2
Society and was granted recognition by respondent No. 2, namely, the
Eastern Regional Committee ( “ERC” ), for conducting various
Teacher Education Courses, including B.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed.
4. Pursuant to a public notice issued by the National Council for Teacher
Education ( “NCTE” ), the petitioner institute submitted an application
dated 30.05.2026 seeking recognition for the Master of Physical
Education ( “M.P.Ed.” ) course. However, without conducting any
inspection and upon preliminary scrutiny of the application, the ERC
issued a show cause notice dated 16.07.2026.
5. The petitioner institute duly submitted its reply to the said show cause
notice by email dated 31.07.2026, within the stipulated time.
However, without taking the said reply into consideration, the ERC
issued a final show cause notice dated 02.09.2026, recording in
paragraph 4 thereof that no reply had been submitted by the petitioner
institute within the prescribed time limit.
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:14
W.P.(C) 15346/2026 Page 2 of 11

6. Thereafter, the petitioner institute submitted its reply dated
02.09.2026 to the final show cause notice, both by email and through
courier. As per the tracking report, the said reply was delivered to the
office of the respondent on 07.09.2026. However, the ERC, vide the
impugned refusal order dated 01.10.2026, rejected the petitioners’
application seeking recognition for the M.P.Ed. course.
7. The grievance of the petitioners is that, despite having duly submitted
replies to both the initial show cause notice and the final show cause
notice, the ERC failed to consider the same before passing the
impugned refusal order dated 01.10.2026.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the
reply submitted in response to the first show cause notice, annexed as
Annexure P-10 to the writ petition, and, in particular, to the email
dated 31.07.2026, whereby the said reply was forwarded to the ERC.
9. My attention has also been drawn to the reply to the final show cause
notice, annexed as Annexure P-12 to the writ petition.
10. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, has further drawn my
attention to paragraph 4 of the final show cause notice and paragraphs
4 and 6 of the impugned refusal order. He submits that, despite the
replies having been duly submitted by the petitioners, paragraph 4 of
the final show cause notice records that no reply was received within
the prescribed time limit, while paragraph 6 of the impugned refusal
order similarly records that no reply was submitted by the petitioner
institute. It is contended that these observations are factually incorrect
and contrary to the record.
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:14
W.P.(C) 15346/2026 Page 3 of 11

11. Mr. Rupal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents,
opposes the petition on the ground of maintainability, contending that
the petitioners have an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under
Section 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993.
However, he is unable to dispute that the replies submitted by the
petitioners were not duly considered by the Regional Committee
before the refusal order was passed. It is also undisputed that no
inspection of the petitioner institute has been conducted to verify the
availability of the requisite physical and academic infrastructure or
the preparedness of the institution to commence the M.P.Ed. course.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record.
13. The impugned refusal order dated 01.10.2026 reads as under:
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:14
W.P.(C) 15346/2026 Page 4 of 11

Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:14
W.P.(C) 15346/2026 Page 5 of 11

Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:14
W.P.(C) 15346/2026 Page 6 of 11

14. A perusal of the impugned refusal order dated 01.10.2026 reveals
that, apart from recording in paragraph 4 that “reply submitted by the
TEI/HEI was considered by Regional Committee on 24.08.2026 in
Meeting No. 404”, the Regional Committee has not furnished any
reasons demonstrating consideration of the petitioners’ reply or the
documents submitted along with it. Once a reply to a show cause
notice has been duly submitted, the Regional Committee is required to
consider the same, along with the accompanying documents, before
arriving at a decision adverse to the institution.
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:14
W.P.(C) 15346/2026 Page 7 of 11

15. Further, a perusal of the documents placed on record reveals an
apparent inconsistency in the stand taken by the ERC. While issuing
the final show cause notice dated 02.09.2026, the ERC recorded in
paragraph 4 that “no reply has been submitted by your TEI/HEI
within the prescribed time limit”. However, paragraph 4 of the
impugned refusal order records that the reply submitted by the
TEI/HEI was considered by the Regional Committee on 24.08.2026 in
Meeting No. 404. These contradictory observations raise serious
doubts regarding the application of mind by the Regional Committee
and indicate that the reply submitted by the petitioner institute to the
first show cause notice was not duly considered. Further, despite the
petitioner institute having submitted a reply to the final show cause
notice, paragraph 6 of the impugned refusal order records that no
reply had been submitted.
16. It is also pertinent to note that paragraph 7 of the impugned refusal
order sets out various deficiencies relating to the physical
infrastructure of the petitioner institute. However, as pointed out by
Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, no inspection of the
institution has been conducted till date. In the absence of such an
inspection, the deficiencies recorded in the impugned order assume
significance, particularly when the petitioner institute disputes the
manner in which its application and the accompanying material have
been considered.
17. In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the respondents have failed
to duly consider the replies submitted by the petitioners to the first
show cause notice and the final show cause notice, despite the same
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:14
W.P.(C) 15346/2026 Page 8 of 11

having been received by the ERC. The impugned refusal order dated
01.10.2026 has, therefore, been passed without due consideration of
the relevant material and in violation of the principles of natural
justice. In these circumstances, the impugned refusal order cannot be
sustained in law and is liable to be set aside.
18. As regards the objection to the maintainability of the present writ
petition on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory
remedy under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India , 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2510 , has reiterated the settled position of law concerning
the exercise of writ jurisdiction despite the availability of an
alternative statutory remedy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that the rule requiring the exhaustion of an alternative
remedy is a self-imposed restriction on the exercise of writ
jurisdiction and does not constitute an absolute bar. The relevant
paragraph of the judgment reads as under:
"7. Decisions of this court are legion from which guidance
can aptly be drawn as to when a writ petition ought to be
entertained despite the party approaching the High Court
not exhausting the alternative statutory remedy available to
him/her/it. Insistence by the courts both this court and the
High Courts of exhaustion of a statutory remedy provided
by an enactment before invoking the writ jurisdiction of a
High Court under article 226 of the Constitution can be
traced to one of several self-imposed restrictions, laid down
by judicial precedents of this court. Unless, of course, any
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:14
W.P.(C) 15346/2026 Page 9 of 11

of the exceptions (challenge to an act/order grounded on (i)
breach of a fundamental right; (ii) violation of natural
justice principles; (iii) lack of jurisdiction; and (iv)
unconstitutionality of a statute) is satisfied, that a writ court
may refuse to entertain a writ petition does not admit of any
doubt. This court relying on a host of decisions including
State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh [1957 SCC OnLine SC
21; AIR 1958 SC 86.] and Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v.
State of Orissa [(1983) 53 STC 315 (SC); (1983) 142 ITR
663 (SC); (1983) 2 SCC 433; 1983 SCC (Tax) 131; 1983
SCC OnLine SC 102.] has, in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v.
Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority
[(2023) 109 GSTR 402 (SC); 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95.],
reiterated that availability of an alternative statutory
remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of a writ court. It was
also explained how "entertainability of a writ petition" is a
concept distinct from the concept of "maintainability of a
writ petition".
(Emphasis added)

19. In view of the aforesaid judgment, I am of the view that,
although Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 provides for a
statutory appellate remedy, the availability of such remedy does
not preclude this Court from exercising its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the facts of the
present case. The decision-making process is itself vitiated on
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:14
W.P.(C) 15346/2026 Page 10 of 11

account of a violation of the principles of natural justice, as the
impugned refusal order has been passed without due
consideration of the replies submitted by the petitioners.
20. Accordingly, the impugned refusal order dated 01.10.2026 passed by
the ERC is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the ERC with a
direction to conduct an inspection of the petitioner institute within a
period of four weeks from today. A copy of the inspection report shall
also be furnished to the petitioner institute.
21. Upon completion of the inspection, the ERC shall process the
petitioners’ application in accordance with law and the applicable
Standard Operating Procedure. In the event any further information,
clarification or documentation is required from the petitioner institute,
the ERC shall duly communicate the same to the petitioner institute,
which shall furnish its response within the time stipulated by the ERC.
22. The ERC shall thereafter consider the replies and documents
submitted by the petitioners, along with the findings of the inspection,
and pass a reasoned and speaking order deciding the petitioners’
application for recognition of the M.P.Ed. course within a period of
three months from today.
23. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.



JASMEET SINGH, J
OCTOBER 14, 2026/sp

(corrected and uploaded on 16.10.2026)

Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:14
W.P.(C) 15346/2026 Page 11 of 11